PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

purchases, making out of bogus bills, etc. He accordingly brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,72,775 by his assessment order.................. The ITO, by that order, Initiated action for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) Para-5: Sir Sadilal Sagar & General Mills case. (A.Y. 1958-59) The assessee company, which derived

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

bogus purchases booked during the relevant financial year and disallowed u/s 37 of the Act by holding that they were not incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business. Further, the AO noted his satisfaction that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 11. Accordingly the Ld. Pr.CIT directed the Ld. AO to re-decide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 05.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to re-compute the income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

AMAR NATH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

purchase as 1980 for the purpose of indexation and after claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act for construction of existing residential accommodation, declared the long-term capital gains at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer by observing that the bills and vouchers furnished by the Assessee in support of the construction made by Assessee are bogus and fictitious and, therefore

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 7. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT directed the Ld. AO to redecide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 29.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to recompute income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

SHRI SUBHASH TYAGI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB(1) of the Act in motion. As a sequel to the show cause notice and response of the assessee thereon, the AO passed penalty order dated 19.06.2019 under clause (c) of erstwhile Section 271AAB(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUBHASH TYAGI PROP. M/S KRISHANA CONSTRUCTION, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB(1) of the Act in motion. As a sequel to the show cause notice and response of the assessee thereon, the AO passed penalty order dated 19.06.2019 under clause (c) of erstwhile Section 271AAB(1

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

bogus long term capital gain and commission thereon respectively. The Assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings. Thereafter the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2018 imposed penalty of Rs. 9,02,488/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

purchase peace and avoid further litigation .So this should not be cannot be considered as concealment of income. 11. It has also been ruled by Honble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steels ltd Vs State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 that penalty cannot be imposed 3 M/s Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. until & unless there is conscious breach

VIVAAN INFOTEL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

purchases so made makes it a case, fit to be called as concealment of income, thereby making it eligible for the levy of penalty under Sec 271(1)(c). 5.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others 306 ITR 277 has held that the 'mens rea' need

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 276C.” While imposition penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.J Act, 1961, it is of utmost importance to take into cognizance the objective of penalty provision. The price objective of 4 I.T.A.No.9233/Del/2019 penalty provision is to have deterrent effect, to make assessee law abiding and to enforce fiscal discipline amongst the asses see. An assessee

MR RAHUL MISHRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed in limine

271(1)(c) on two accounts:- . (i) Failure to disclose short term capital gains of Rs.3,91,66,758/- on sale of land/property in the original return filed on 31.10.2007. . (ii) False or bogus claim of short term capital loss of Rs.4,52,00,000/- on sale of shares which was set off to reduce the long term capital gains

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchase of Rs. 14,44,111/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23/03/2016 by imposing 100% penalty of Rs.54,290/-/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. As against the penalty order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchase of Rs. 14,44,111/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23/03/2016 by imposing 100% penalty of Rs.54,290/-/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. As against the penalty order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT

GULSHAN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

bogus expenses as explained by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings. 4.2 We find justification in the plea of the assessee for inapplicability of Section 271(1)(c) in the facts of the case. I.T.A. No.5345/Del/2017 3 Having distributed the entire expenses in proportion of 2 months out of 12 months on equitable basis, the explanation of the assessee

PBG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpbg International Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Cb-4B, Dda Flats, Vs. Delhi-110002. Munirka, Delhi-110067. Pan-Aabcp8752E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By 20.01.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,670/- Along With Computation Of Income, Auditors' Report & Audited Accounts Of The Assessee. Ld. Ao On Basis Of Incriminating & Tangible Information & After Following Due Process, Re-Opened Pbg International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

purchases of Rs. 1,38,32,272/- and bogus sales of Rs 1,47,20,000/-even without rejecting the books of accounts under section 145(3). Therefore, the entire assessment order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 6.5 The learned AO has erred in giving only two days time to the assessee to give the reply

ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(2), NEW DELHI vs. ESAOTE ASIA PACIFIC DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

purchase of finished goods; ii. Addition of Rs.9,16,965/- on account of interest income. 4. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order and the same was dismissed. Further appeal filed by the assessee before ITAT is stated to be pending. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

SAIMANDEEP INDUSTRIES OF INDIA ,GHAZIABAD vs. AO-WARD-51(92), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,17,271/- on account of estimated additions towards bogus purchases