“deletion of penalty”

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the “the Act”) was carried ... result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. The facts and issue in ITA No.5133/Del/2017 are identical and consequently, the basis for deletion of penalty in applies mutatis mutandis in ITA No.5132/Del/2017 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10 as well. 13. Consequently, the penalty order dated 20.06.2014 in ITA No.5132/Del/2017

Aesthetica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the “the Act”) was carried ... result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. The facts and issue in ITA No.5133/Del/2017 are identical and consequently, the basis for deletion of penalty in applies mutatis mutandis in ITA No.5132/Del/2017 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10 as well. 13. Consequently, the penalty order dated 20.06.2014 in ITA No.5132/Del/2017

Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi vs. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in both these appeals relate to the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short] amounting ... such cases, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot survive. Apart from the aforesaid, we are also find that CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has observed that there was no concealment of the particulars of income nor assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the penalty

Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi vs. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The common grievance in both these appeals relate to the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short] amounting ... such cases, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot survive. Apart from the aforesaid, we are also find that CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has observed that there was no concealment of the particulars of income nor assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the penalty

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2005-06

assessment year 2005-06 in the case of Nilkanth Concast Pvt. Ltd.,(“the assessee”), Revenue preferred this appeal, challenging the deletion of penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(“the Act for short”). 2. Brief facts, relevant to disposal of this appeal, are that ... Assessee preferred appeal against the penalty order before the ld. CIT(A), who deleted the penalty imposed, by relying on the order of ITAT, Delhi Benches in the quantum appeal of the assessee for the impugned assessment year, whereby the assessment and additions made by Assessing Officer stood quashed

DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Infonox Software P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi

raised following ground of appeal:- 1. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that there was reasonable cause ... assessee to furnish its return of income required u/s 139(1) of the Act. a) Whether the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271F falling to appreciate that the correctness of advance tax paid by an assessee can be ascertained only after completion of assessment pursuant

DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi vs. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 4753 & 4754/Del/2017 (For Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit Vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(1) Su-217, Pitampura New Delhi New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccg 0954 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2021 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Learned Dr Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year

penalty order, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 28.02.2017 in Appeal No.141/16-17 (Original) / 72/16-17 (New) deleted the penalty for 3 the reason that he noticed that the notice issued for penalty did not specify as to whether the penalty was levied ... penalty order but the penalty was imposed for concealment of income as per Para – 7 of the penalty order. He accordingly deleted the penalty. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether

Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Vs. Ito Ltd., C/O. Nitesh Singh, Ward-1(4), C-190, Sector-49, Noida Noida-201301 Pan : Aafcp 8389 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sunil Kumar Tyagi, C.A. Revenue By --None-- Date Of Hearing: 03/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Bench of Tribunal, I am of the view that the penalty order passed by CIT(A) does not survive. I therefore direct the deletion of penalty levied by CIT(A) and thus the grounds of assessee are allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. Order pronounced

ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Anurag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the Department’s appeal bearing ITA

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi {CIT(A)} for Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of Rs.45,46,111/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2.0 The brief facts ... That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty of Rs.45,46,111/- which was imposed by the AO on account of conceal interest income of Rs.1,47,12,333/- on account

DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Anurag Dalmia, New Delhi

In the result, the Department’s appeal bearing ITA

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi {CIT(A)} for Assessment Year 2012-13, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty of Rs.45,46,111/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2.0 The brief facts ... That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the Penalty of Rs.45,46,111/- which was imposed by the AO on account of conceal interest income of Rs.1,47,12,333/- on account

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Victory Township Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Revenue reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- on the ground that the additions made by the AO have already been deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT in quantum ... High Court. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- without appreciating the fact that in view of the departments appeal before the High Court, the order of the Hon’ble ITAT

ACIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi vs. Victory Dewllings Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Revenue reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- on the ground that the additions made by the AO have already been deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT in quantum ... High Court. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- without appreciating the fact that in view of the departments appeal before the High Court, the order of the Hon’ble ITAT

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Victory Accommodation Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Revenue reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- on the ground that the additions made by the AO have already been deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT in quantum ... High Court. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- without appreciating the fact that in view of the departments appeal before the High Court, the order of the Hon’ble ITAT

ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Victory Structures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Revenue reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- on the ground that the additions made by the AO have already been deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT in quantum ... High Court. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.93,13,260/- without appreciating the fact that in view of the departments appeal before the High Court, the order of the Hon’ble ITAT