← All Phrases

“deletion of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 271348 judgments

The decision most relied on for deletion of penalty is Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT (115 TTJ 419), cited in 292 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on deletion of penalty

Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
115 TTJ 419 · 2008 · ITAT
292
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) is not leviable when the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for such non-compliance. The decision defines what constitutes 'reasonable cause' in this context.

Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation v. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai
84 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · ITAT
263
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be deleted merely due to technical defects in the penalty notice, such as not ticking the specific default, if the assessee understood the charges.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.
221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Krishi Tyre Retreading and Rubber Industries
360 ITR 580 · 2014 · High Court
117
citing judgments

No penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimation basis, absent concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

CIT v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd.
303 ITR 53 · 2008 · High Court
116
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is not leviable when an addition to income is made purely on an estimated basis, without any concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT
222 ITR 691 · 1996 · High Court
114
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd.
345 ITR 270 · 2012 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Transactions involving the receipt or repayment of loans or deposits solely through journal entries, without actual cash movement, contravene Sections 269SS and 269T. However, penalties under Sections 271D or 271E for such contraventions are not imposable if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause under Section 273B, particularly when no cash has passed between parties.

Judgments citing deletion of penalty

Sobhi Lal Saini, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c)

gain were already on the file of AO and therefore assessee had not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He prayed for deletion of penalty in question. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below. 3 5. I have heard rival submissions

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Aayakr Bhawan, Siraswadi Road, Nr Tv. Centre vs. Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Limited, Sarojinidevi Road, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1228/PUN/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Mahesh Nagari Ward-1, Jalna. V Sahakaripathastha Limited, S 14, Swami Complex, First Floor, Sarojinidevi Road, Jalna – 431203. Pan: Aaaam5643C Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.09.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 01.10.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under : “I) On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deletion Of Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act As Levied By The Ao. Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha [R]

Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)

Revenue are as under : “i) On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deletion of penalty u/s 270A of the Act as levied by the AO. Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha [R] ii) On the fact and in the circumstances ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 270A by allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has earned interest on investment which is not allowable for such deduction. iii) Any other ground of appeal that

Income Tax Officer Ward-26(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Wire and Cable Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

penalty order dated 03/01/2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The only grievance of the Revenue is against the deletion of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Saraswati Wire And Cable Industries ITA no.2548/Mum./2023 3. During the hearing, no one appeared ... bench of the Tribunal in Mukesh Shaligram Sharda v/s ITO, in ITAs no. 1907 and 1908/Mum./2021, for the assessment year 2019-20, deleted the penalty levied by the AO. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under:- “Decision: 2.3 I have carefully considered the grounds

ACIT, Circle- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avenue Real Estate Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2023[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the A.Y.2009-10. 2. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty of Rs.4,83,280/- u/s.271(1)(c) for disallowance of GP rate on alleged bogus purchases. 2 Avenue Real Estate ... been levied on disallowance of Rs.14,25,608/- which was worked out to Rs. 4,83,280/-. The ld. CIT (A) has deleted the penalty. 4. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the relevant finding given in the impugned order, we find that there was an information

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

Further I have come across cases where it is held that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied or declaring the penalty proceedings as null and void some of which are as under. 1. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, ITA No.3830

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

Further I have come across cases where it is held that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied or declaring the penalty proceedings as null and void some of which are as under. 1. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, ITA No.3830

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied or declaring the penalty proceedings as null and void. 1. Dhanraj Mills Put. Ltd. us ACIT, ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because no case is ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 made out for that. Hence, we delete the penalty in all these assessment years. 8.2 Since we have deleted the penalty on jurisdictional issue, we need not go into the matter on merits. All these appeals

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied or declaring the penalty proceedings as null and void. 1. Dhanraj Mills Put. Ltd. us ACIT, ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because no case is ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 made out for that. Hence, we delete the penalty in all these assessment years. 8.2 Since we have deleted the penalty on jurisdictional issue, we need not go into the matter on merits. All these appeals

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied or declaring the penalty proceedings as null and void. 1. Dhanraj Mills Put. Ltd. us ACIT, ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because no case is ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 made out for that. Hence, we delete the penalty in all these assessment years. 8.2 Since we have deleted the penalty on jurisdictional issue, we need not go into the matter on merits. All these appeals

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

limbs in the penalty notice would not invalidate penalty and that minor defect in the notice issued cannot be the basis of deletion of penalty levied or declaring the penalty proceedings as null and void. 1. Dhanraj Mills Put. Ltd. us ACIT, ITA No. 3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving ... furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because no case is ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 made out for that. Hence, we delete the penalty in all these assessment years. 8.2 Since we have deleted the penalty on jurisdictional issue, we need not go into the matter on merits. All these appeals

S Sagar Enterprise, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) S Sagar Enterprise बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-1(1) Be-5010, Bharat Diamond Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Cgo Annexe, Maharishi Complex, Bandra (East), Karve Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfs8866G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Dated 22.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.16,17,140/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

warranted because estimated addition has inherent subjectivity involved. Therefore, no penalty is warranted. Therefore, we direct the deletion of penalty. 4. Coming to ground no. 4 of the assessee’s appeal wherein assessee claims to have inadvertently remitted fees of Rs.10,000/- vide challan no. 01338 dated 03.07.2023 towards fees

Edwise International LLP, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2713/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2713/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2020-21) Edwise International Llp Nfac, Delhi. बिधम/ 2 Jer Mahal Ground Floor, Vs. Opp Metro Cinema Dhobi, Talao Mumbai – 400002

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)
Section 271BSection 44A

filing the TAR before the due date i.e, 31.10.2020. Since there is reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty, we direct the deletion of penalty. 3 A.Y. 2020-21 Edwise International LLp., 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3209/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which the AO was proposing to levy penalty. Therefore, according to Ld AR the penalty levied by AO is vitiated and pleaded for deletion of penalty. And in support of his aforesaid submission, the Ld. AR has relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra) and other judicial precedents supra and consequently allow the appeal of the assessee and direct deletion of penalty levied for both years (AY 2007-08 & 2000-10). 9. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19 (2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3208/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3209/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3208/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Himanshu Chimanlal बिधम/ Assistant Commissioner Engineer Income Tax, 19 (2) Vs. 33 – Chamunda Niwas, B- Piramal Chambers, Wing, 3Rd Floor, Tagore Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road, Santa Cruz (West), Mumbai-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaape0548H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N Pai Revenue By: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi (Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 14.07.2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 & Ay 2009-10. 2. Both Sides Agree That These Appeals Are Penalty Appeals; & Facts As Well As The Penalty Levied Are Similar/Identical In Both Appeals. Therefore, Appeal For The Ay 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of Which Will Be Followed Mutatis Mutandis For The Appeal For Ay 2009-10. A.Y. 2007-08, 2009-10 Himanshu Chimanlal Engineer, Mumbai 3. Coming To Appeal For Ay 2007-08, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Anant N Pai Pointed Out That The Ao Had Levied An Amount Of Rs.5,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Penalty Order Dated 31.03.2014 For Ay. 2007-08 (And Rs. 10,00,000/- For Ay 2009-10). Further According To Him, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Impugned Penalty Levied By The Ao. Before Us The Assessee Has Raised An Addition Ground Of Appeal Wherein Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Which Is Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Anant N PaiFor Respondent: Shri. P D Chougle (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

which the AO was proposing to levy penalty. Therefore, according to Ld AR the penalty levied by AO is vitiated and pleaded for deletion of penalty. And in support of his aforesaid submission, the Ld. AR has relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra) and other judicial precedents supra and consequently allow the appeal of the assessee and direct deletion of penalty levied for both years (AY 2007-08 & 2000-10). 9. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open

DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bombardier Transportation India P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1262/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. Bombardier Transportation India P. Ltd. Room No.398, 3Rd Floor, Novotel Pullman, C.R. Building, Hotel Commercial Tower, Aerocity, New Delhi. Delhi International Airport, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca5584C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred as Ld. CIT(A)), pertaining to AY 2011-12. Bombardier Transportation India P. Ltd. 2 2. The Revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty of Rs.33,47,40,340/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. 3. At the time ... penalty i.e. adjustments in the ALP and the enhancement of the income, no longer survives that the Ld.CIT(A) was justified to delete the penalty. There is no substance in the grounds raised. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.01.2024 s (G.S. PANNU

The DCIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Rajkot vs. M/S. Korea South East Power Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 115ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

heard ex-parte the assessee. 2.1. As noted above, the present appeal of the Department challenges the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on the assessee for having concealed and /or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty being levied u/s.271 ... have carefully gone through the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty and we have noted that she deleted the penalty noting that • the only impact of the assessment was rejecting the assessee’s claim of returning presumptive income u/s.44BBB of the Act and treating

ITO Ward-77(3), New Delhi vs. Sterling Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed

ITA 1236/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133ASection 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

HUDA, no TDS is liable to be deducted, hence we are inclined not to interfere with the decision of the learned Commissioner, in deleting the penalty on this count. 17 ITA no. 9282/Del/2019 5.2 As we have decided not to interfere in the deletion of penalty on merits, hence

M/S. D K Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2183/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Soni, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. Hence, the same are not leviable. The appellant also prays for the deletion of penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 as there is no question of misrepresentation & inaccurate information as well as there

Gopesh Fabrics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Faridabad

Appeal stands allowed accordingly

ITA 2483/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

fault can be attributed to the assessee for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. He prayed for deletion of penalty levied by the AO. 4. On the other hand, learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Burla, Sambalpur vs. DCIT Circle2(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue being ITA No

ITA 41/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.14 To 17/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.41/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.70 To 73/Ctk/2023 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.147/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2016-2017 To 2020-2021) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.69/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Acit/Dcit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. :Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

respective appeals for the assessment years 2016-2017 to 2020- 2021. 3. ITA No.69/CTK/2023 is an appeal filed by the revenue against the deletion of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2022, passed in DIN & Order ... Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 30.11.2022, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047723977(1) for the assessment year 2015-2016, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 63. It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that the AO had levied penalty on account