PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Meena Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Meena Singhal, Vs Ito, C-3/52,Rajashthali Apartment, Ward-43(6), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Acaps1872L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2023

…. 4. Since the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated and levied is notmentioned in the notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 no penalty could be imposed on the assessee:- - Pr. CIT, v. M/S. Sahara India Life Insurance company, Ltd., [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del), dt. 02.08.2019, Hon'ble Delhi High Court - CIT VS. M/s. Manjunathan Cotton and Ginning Factory & Othrs, [2013] 359 ITR 565, Karnataka HC - CIT Vs. SSA Emarald Meadows, ITA No. 380 of 2015, Karnataka HC also confirmed by SC - George Kutty, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Ltd. Versus Dcit, ITA No.3788/Del/2019, dt. 24.08.2022 - Legend Realtor…

Jatinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1670/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) Jatinder Pal Singh, vs. DCIT, C/o D-6/13, Vasant Vihar, Central Circle 18, New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. (PAN : ALPPS9874G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date of Order : 22.06.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the or…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi -7 vs. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd

…urn had relied upon the judgment of its own Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565. 18. Furthermore, the Tribunal also noted the coordinate bench judgement of this Court in PCIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.). Digitally Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:24.06.2023 16:10:23 Signature Not Verified ITA 291/2023 Pg. 5 of 6 19. We may note, that even the assessment order dated 14.03.2015, whereby penalty proceedings were triggered, did not indicate as to which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being triggered qua the petition…

Rudra Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

…ssessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness 4. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del.) has also taken the same view. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court concluded as under :- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kostub Investment Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

…ices were issued on cyclostyle formats. In this regard, there is a consistent view of the Tribunal following the Delhi High Court judgment in 2281/Del/2014 & C.O. No. 204.Del.14 M/s Kostub Investment Ltd. PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Delhi) (HC) that non-striking of the limb in the notice vitiates the penalty order. In the case in hand on behalf of the Ld. DR an attempt was made to defend the notices submitting that there are allegations of both concealment and of furnishing inaccurate particulars, then in that case it was all the more necessary to identify and convey to the…

ITO, Ward-2(3), Dehradun vs. Sanjay Ghai, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

…urt (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 and 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.2021. Similar proposition was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del.) Thus, since the penalty notice is omnibus and the charge has not been specified, the penalty is not sustainable. Accordingly, following the precedent and on the undisputed proposition that relevant limb of the penalty notice was not identified as to whether penalty was for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, we u…

ITO, Ward-2(3), Dehradun vs. Sanjay Ghai, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

…urt (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT in Tax Appeal No. 51 and 57 of 2012 dated 11.03.2021. Similar proposition was laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del.) Thus, since the penalty notice is omnibus and the charge has not been specified, the penalty is not sustainable. Accordingly, following the precedent and on the undisputed proposition that relevant limb of the penalty notice was not identified as to whether penalty was for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, we u…

Vansh Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

…ying the charge for which notice was issued the penalty proceedings initiated were bad in law and consequently levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. Reliance was placed on the following decisions:- i) PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.); ii) CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.); & iii) CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar.) 4. Referring to the above judgments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify the limb for which or the charge…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, the cross objection is allowed and the Revenue’s

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

…grounds of the penalty proceedings only 3 I.T.A.No.5771/Del/2010 & CO No. 23/Del/2011 through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness Similar proposition was laid down in Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del.) Thus, since the penalty notice is omnibus and the charge has not been specified, the penalty is not sustainable. 6. Since we have quashed the penalty on account of jurisdictional defect, adjudication of Revenue’s appeal has become infructuous. Hence, we are not engaging with this. 6. In the result, the cross objection is allowed and th…

Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

…ained. For this proposition, we rely upon the full bench decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A. Shaikh vs DCIT 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom). Similar proposition was laid down in Pr. CIT vs Shara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. [2021] 432 ITR 84 (Del.) Thus, since the penalty notice is omnibus and the charge has not been specified, the penalty is not sustainable. 9. Apart from the above, it is noted that the issue on which penalty has been finally levied is disallowance of expenditure in connection with QIP and disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80-IB on the ground of allocation of…

Mr. Jagmohan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2011-12

…levant clause would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and levy of penalty would suffers from non-application of mind. 7.3 Even the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) while following the cases referred above, held as under: “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notic…

K World Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

…vant clause would lead to an inference of non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer and levy of penalty would suffers from non-application of mind. 5.3. Even the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.) while following the cases referred above, held as under: “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and observed that the notic…

Orient Clothing Company Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Orient Clothing Company VersuS ACIT, Circle 19(1), Private Limited, 1E/15, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. PAN: AAACO1779K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ved Jain, Ld. Adv Respondent by : Sh. Jeetender Chand, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02.01.2023 Date of order : 05.01.2023 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.08.2019, impugned herein, passed by the l…

Kalinga Cables and Conduits Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-41(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

…of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, 242 Taxman 180 and various other judgements of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi including the judgement in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd., 432 ITR 84 (Del). In view of the above, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted by 4 ITA.No.26/Del./2019 respectfully following the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (supra). Apropos the additional grounds of the assessee, the ld. AR drew our attention to page 20 of the assessee’s paper book whe…

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

…king of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind. " (emphasis supplied) 2.6. The aforesaid decision was recently followed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.: [2021] 432 ITR 84, wherein it was reiterated that notice under 7 | P a g e section 274 r.w.s. 271 (1 )(c) should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed as the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. 2.7. The aforesaid principle has been re-iterated in a plethora of decisions, some of which have been lis…

Vinod Oberoi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 54(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

…I.T.A. No. 5779/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “H” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5779/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vinod Oberoi, Income Tax Officer, बनाम M-21, Jangpura Extension, Ward : 54 (3), Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. New Delhi. PAN : AAAPO2204J अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent N o n e; िनधा"रतीकीओरसे / Assessee by : Shri M. Baranwal, राज"वक"ओरसे / Department by : [CIT] - D. R.; 20/09/2022 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing : 20/09/2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on :…

Atul Anand, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 32(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudharyatul Anand Vs. Ito C-5/44, Sda, Ward – 32(4) New Delhi-110 016 New Delhi Pan No. Aadpa 0520 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Kvs Gupta, Adv. Revenue By Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.06.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

…lty has been initiated i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. He, therefore, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance 4 Co. Ltd.(2021) 432 ITR 84 submitted that the show-cause-notice issued by the Assessing Officer were illegal and bad in law and, therefore, liable to be quashed. 7. Learned DR, on the other hand, did not controvert the submissions made by the learned authorized representative but, however, submitted that the levy of penalty has to be seen after considering overall conduct…

N S Papers Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasadm/S. N. S. Papers Ltd., Vs. Dcit 8Th K. M. Stone, Jansath Circle – 2 Road, Muzaffar Nagar Muzaffar Nagar Pan No. Aaacr 7902 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

…ed that in the notice dated 26.12.2017 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been indicated by AO. 8. We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 432 ITR 84 (Del.), after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) & CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 241 (Kar) [where 5 the SLP filed by Revenue was dismissed and reported in (2016) 386 ITR (ST) 13 (SC)] has held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not leviable when the notice…