DCIT,CIRCLE-1,RANCHI, RANCHI vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Central Coalfields Ltd., D.C.I.T., Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue D.C.I.T., Central Coalfield Ltd., Circle-1, 4Th Floor, Central Revenue Building Vs. Ranchi. Annexee, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacc 7476 R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

43,53,60,000/- (viii) IICM Charges ₹ 2,35,40,000/- Total Additions/Disallowances ₹ 97,77,17,000/- The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated with the issue of notice under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and finally, the Assessing Officer vide the impugned penalty order imposed

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

5 m) If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no penalty could be imposed. n) The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA ,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

5 m) If the explanation offered, even though not substantiated by the assessee, but is found to be bona fide and all facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, no penalty could be imposed. n) The direction referred to in Explanation IB to Section 271

PR. CIT (C), PATNA, PATNA vs. RAMESH KUMAR SINGH, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

43,000/- and added the same in the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PATNA, RANCHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

43,000/- and added the same in the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated

RAMESH KUMAR SINGH,RANCHI vs. PR. CIT(C), PATNA, PATNA

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

43,000/- and added the same in the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated in this case. 5. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT vide its order under Section 263 of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 dated 03/12/2020, set aside the assessment order dated

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are separately initiated on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." The above statement of the Assessing Officer IS not legally tenable due to the following reasons.- The AO has assumed that no such liability existed in the form of sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.3