PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 271(1)(c), would require the A.O. to prove that specifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would show that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income. 17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher income in the return filed by the assessee was a consequence

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271(1), before the proceedings are concluded. In the assessee's case, the penalty proceedings have been sustained not on the basis of any defects in the books of accounts but for some error which has been accepted by the assessee. As the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, though the finding in assessment proceedings are independent proceedings, these cannot

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation and development rebate. The above claim was not accepted by the [TO and penalty proceedings under section 271(1

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), would require the A.O. to prove that specifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would show that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income. 17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher income in the return filed by the assessee was a consequence

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), would require the A.O. to prove that specifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would show that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income. 17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher income in the return filed by the assessee was a consequence

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), would require the A.O. to prove that specifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would show that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income. 17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher income in the return filed by the assessee was a consequence

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

section 271 (1 )(c) was faulty. Hence, from this angle also, the imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) was illegal. 12 V ITA Nos. 2239, 2240/Del/2014 20) Such indirect expenditure of RS.21,28,05,101/- as claimed was neither found to be bogus nor sham in nature and therefore, no penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) could be levied

M/S. OCHOA LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271(1)(c) levied by the AO which is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law as show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO is general in nature with mentioning specific charge of imposition of penalty. 3. That the issue in question now squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT, Delhi