CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

u/s 271(1)(c) should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 11,42,971/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section

SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings

SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings

SRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,DHANBAD vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted where the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 may be (in addition to tax, if any payable) imposed for a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure.” We note thatwhile making the second assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act, the following issues were examined by the assessing officer: (i).Incentive on sales

M/S KRISH CONSTRUCTION,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम M/S Krish Construction, Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Ranchi / V/S. Kte 4, Krish Tower, Singh More, Hatia, Ranchi-834003. Pan No.Aakfk6755G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (in short ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing proportionate bank interest of Rs.7