AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That on facts & circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Commissioner of Income

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Capital gains' in respect of any profits or gains arising from the sale, exchange, relinquishment or transfer of a capital asset effect after 31st day of March, 1956.... The word 'relinquishment' has been newly inserted. I am inclined to agree with the contention on behalf of the respondents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated separately.” 13 15. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has submitted as under :- “1. Principles laid down in the circular No. 04/2007 dt. 15th June, 2007 are satisfied to treat the income as Short

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant operative paragraphs of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted hereunder:- “5.1 I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the AR of the appellant. At the outset, the contentions of the AR in stating that the order levying penalty is liable to be set aside

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately for failure to disclose the true particulars of\nincome as mentioned above.”\nAggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the\nAO in computing the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.17,13,1035/- on sale

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED,WEST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

gain, Capital subsidy and addition on Arm’s Length price adjustment were made. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1

SUVENDU BANARJEE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7436/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Suvendu Banarjee, Vs Acit, B-137, Chittranjan Park, Circle-30(1), New Delhi-110019 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapb0869L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2022

gain, which was deliberate and 2 Suvendu Banerjee willful, therefore, provisions of section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is clearly applicable in the present case. On the other hand, during the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR relying on various judicial pronouncements, has contended that the offer of taxation of short term capital

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act,1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nwithin the meaning of explanation1 to the sub-section (1) of the section\n271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated.\nAddition: Rs. 44,05,518/-\nThe issue on merits at the heart of the matter is allowability of the cost

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

1) was issued on 05.06.2017 requiring the assessee to file information relating to the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act whereupon the copy of the purchase and sale deeds of the property were furnished. The said assessment was finalized by the Ld. AO upon making addition of Rs.105,67,271/- on account of long term capital gain

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

1) was issued on 05.06.2017 requiring the assessee to file information relating to the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act whereupon the copy of the purchase and sale deeds of the property were furnished. The said assessment was finalized by the Ld. AO upon making addition of Rs.105,67,271/- on account of long term capital gain

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

capital gain. During the assessment, the AO verified the claim of commission of Rs. 2,50,000/- and improvement expenditure of Rs. 50,000. The AO asked the assessee to produce documentary evidences regarding the claim made by the assessee. That the matter being old, the assessee could not produce the evidences and as such the AO estimated the disallowance

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

section. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 317 ITR [SC] 1 has held that penalty u/s 271 [1][c] is neither criminal nor quasi criminal but a civil liability, albeit a strict liability. Such liability being civil in nature, mens-rea is not essential. On the issue of not marking

VINAY KHETAN,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Capital Gain was accordingly revised and enhanced. The AO also invoked the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and alleged

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

271(1)(c), if the capital gain is treated as a long term capital gain.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee filed return of income declaring an income of Rs. 1,72,48,137/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. An order under section

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

section 271(1)(c) dated 31.03.2014 was issued requiring the assessee to show cause as to why a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed for concealing the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his order dated confirmed