SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 271(l)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has not specifically mentioned whether Explanation 1 (A) is applicable or Explanation 1(B). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by simply referring to Explanation 1. 6. Because even otherwise neither Explanation 1(A) is applicable

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

69C by itself, cannot be extended to penalty proceedings to raise a presumption about concealment of such income - Held, yes - Whether on a finding that return of income which is less than 80 per cent of assessed income is not result of fraud or gross or wilful neglect, penalty cannot be sustained by raising a presumption of concealment of income

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act, was not applicable for the Asstt. Year 2017-18. Ld. PCIT further observed that, it is a well-known fact that from the Asstt. Year 2017-18 onwards in cases where income determined includes any income referred to in section, 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C