“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

effect to the order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” “Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

effect to the order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” “Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

effect to the order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” “Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

effect to the order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” “Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Hitesh Construction P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circal-06, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

effect to the order of CIT(A), the Assessing Officer after providing the assessee an opportunity to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be levied for concealment of income, and considering the same, rejected the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” “Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known Clix Finance India Unlimited), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2012-13]

While proposing enhancement, the TPO observed “The Assessing Officer may examine the feasibility of initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with Explanation 7 of the same. 5. The TPO initiated penalty proceedings by issuing and serving notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271 ... Considering the totality of the facts in light of the judicial decisions [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 90,27,690/-. 15. We will not rest our findings at this stage, but would like to proceed

Kay Jay Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singh[A.Y 2008-09]

appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. Respectfully following the decisions [supra] we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 47,63,806/-. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 6886/DEL/2017

Pradeep Sood, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle- I, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 534/Del/2018 (A.Y 2004-05) (Through Video Conferencing) Pradeep Sood Vs Dcit Rra Tax India, D-28, South Central Circle-1 Extension, Part-1, Faridabad, Haryana New Aezps3313K (Appellant) (Respondent)

issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck ... notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

judicial pronouncements in India in undertaking the TP adjustment. 2. The ld. AO erred in facts and in law in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 3. In ITA No. 5554/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both ... case for the Assessment Year 2005-06 & 2006-07. 6. The Ld. AO erred in facts and in law in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 4. Alcatel Development India Private Limited (“ADIPL”) was originally incorporated as a private limited company in the name of Alcatel Development Center Chennai

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

judicial pronouncements in India in undertaking the TP adjustment. 2. The ld. AO erred in facts and in law in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 3. In ITA No. 5554/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both ... case for the Assessment Year 2005-06 & 2006-07. 6. The Ld. AO erred in facts and in law in initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 4. Alcatel Development India Private Limited (“ADIPL”) was originally incorporated as a private limited company in the name of Alcatel Development Center Chennai

JCIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Airport Authority of India, New Delhi

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

deleted the penalty by returning following findings :- “5.3 It is also observed from the available records that the initiation of the penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) was made in the order u/s 143(3) under the limb 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. In fact, it is gathered from the appellant ... submissions filed during the course of the present appeal that penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) was imposed by the impugned order although the appellant had submitted all details regarding its claim of deduction of expenses. It is also observed from the plethora of judicial 4 ITA No.369/Del./2018 precedents relied

Mona Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

quantum proceedings we have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record sustain by the CIT(A). The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for each year as follows:- A.Y Amount of Penalty Section 2006-07 9,08,820/- 271(1)(c) 2008-09 1 ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Mona Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

quantum proceedings we have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record sustain by the CIT(A). The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for each year as follows:- A.Y Amount of Penalty Section 2006-07 9,08,820/- 271(1)(c) 2008-09 1 ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Mona Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

quantum proceedings we have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record sustain by the CIT(A). The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for each year as follows:- A.Y Amount of Penalty Section 2006-07 9,08,820/- 271(1)(c) 2008-09 1 ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Mona Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

quantum proceedings we have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record sustain by the CIT(A). The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for each year as follows:- A.Y Amount of Penalty Section 2006-07 9,08,820/- 271(1)(c) 2008-09 1 ... issued u/s 271(1)(c) has become null and void, there is no need to comment on merit of the case. The Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed.” Since in the instant case also the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck

Late Shri Rakesh Sethi Through Legal Heir Mrs. Anju Sethi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2009-10 Late Shri Rakesh Sethi Through Vs Dcit, (Legal Heir Mrs. Anju Sethi), Central Circle-5, 37/2B, Gwalior House, New Delhi-110055. Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, New Delhi-110054. Pan-Awips4718D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.Govind Singhal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2021

appeal:- 1. “The Ld.CIT has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed against the order levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, of Rs.1,58,404/-. 2. The Ld.CIT has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed

Gda Finvest & Trade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Sh.Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2005-06 Gda Finvest & Trade Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Delhi Rohtak Road, Assam Circle-10(1), Timber Market, Swarna Park, New Delhi. Mundka, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacg4200D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2021

That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable, simply because the assessee had failed to get the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- (made ... That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable, simply because the assessee had failed to get the disallowance of Rs. Assessment Year : 2005-06 14,382/- (made

Smartspace Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Smartspace Infrastructure Vs. Ito Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 9(1) 67, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi New Delhi-110065 Pan No. Aajcs 2713 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Bhalla, C.A. Revenue By Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.08.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under :

erred both on the facts and in law in upholding the jurisdiction and the decision of learned Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.17,53,575/-. 2. The Appellant Company craves leave to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal ... rival submission and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made u/s 68 of the Act by the AO. We find that the Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal

V.B. Builders, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 V.B. Builders, Vs Dcit, C/O Praveen Aggarwal & Co.,Cas, Circle-2, 23, Bhai Veer Singh Marg, Ghaziabad. Gole Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aagfv0254P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kvsr Krishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.6,63,960/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th October, 2013 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,78,80,820/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The It Act, 1961 On 30Th December, 2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,00,28,920/- Wherein He Made An Addition Of Rs.21,48,102/- By Estimating The Profit At 14.5% As Agreed By The Assessee For Such Estimation. Subsequently, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee & Distinguishing The Various Decisions Cited Before Him, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.6,63,763/- Being 100% Of Tax Sought To Be Evaded.

assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee, referring to the following decisions, submitted that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable where the AO has rejected book results and adopted higher profit ratio on estimate basis than that declared ... higher than the profit declared by the assessee, the same, in our opinion, should not be the basis for automatic levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Devandas Perumal & Co. (supra) has held that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., Circle – 11(1), 34, Basant Lok, Vasant New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach 0812 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present grounds are with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the various additions were made by the AO and on the additions which have ... been upheld by Tribunal AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also an undisputed fact that against the quantum additions which have been upheld by the Hon’ble Tribunal, assessee has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Delhi High