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)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

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)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

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)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

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

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)

b. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO: [1964] 52 ITR 399 (P&H). In the facts of that case, the petitioner company had renounced its preferential right to subscribe to the shares of M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited in favour

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

b) Notional Disallowance of interest on an estimated rate of interest under Section 36(1 )(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent of share application money: With respect to this disallowance, nos. 12 to 14 of the ITAT decision dated 24.07.2019, reproduced below: 12. Now coming to the issue relating to the disallowance of proportional interest under

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)(c) of the Act were initiated in respect of the above said additions. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that a perusal of assessment order would show that penalty proceedings were initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income

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

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

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

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 gain instead of earlier claim of long term capital loss while filing the return of income was just

ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

Accordingly,\nthe appeals being ITA Nos.1392 to 1395/Del/2022 for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-\n16 filed by the assessee are also allowed

capital.\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment\norder passed by the assessing officer is contrary to provisions of sections 153D\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.\"\n4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee raised the legal ground\nbeing Ground

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI vs. ASHISH GARG, DELHI

Accordingly,\nthe appeals being ITA Nos.1392 to 1395/Del/2022 for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-\n16 filed by the assessee are also allowed

capital.\n9.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment\norder passed by the assessing officer is contrary to provisions of sections 153D\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.\"\n4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee raised the legal ground\nbeing Ground

ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

Accordingly,\nthe appeals being ITA Nos.1392 to 1395/Del/2022 for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-\n16 filed by the assessee are also allowed

capital.\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment\norder passed by the assessing officer is contrary to provisions of sections 153D\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.\"\n4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee raised the legal ground\nbeing Ground

ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

Accordingly,\nthe appeals being ITA Nos.1392 to 1395/Del/2022 for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-\n16 filed by the assessee are also allowed

capital.\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment\norder passed by the assessing officer is contrary to provisions of sections 153D\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CIT(A) erred in not holding so.\"\n4. At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee raised the legal ground\nbeing Ground

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

B) of the 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