A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance without arriving at a prima facie satisfaction with respect to infraction by the assessee of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. A requirement which is mandated by the provision itself. 15.7 Learned ASG also sought to place reliance on the Memorandum as well as Clause 48 of the Notes on Clauses appended

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

disallowance of the exemption under Section 11 on the ground of violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

13,799/- was added on account of ‘Revaluation of closing stock’. (relevant paras are 37 and 38 of the assessment order). On account of these disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

13,799/- was added on account of ‘Revaluation of closing stock’. (relevant paras are 37 and 38 of the assessment order). On account of these disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

disallowances have been made contrary to the dictum laid down by various Courts. 12. Each of the aforesaid contention is briefly elaborated hereunder: Re (a): Assessment completed without issuance of show cause notice cum draft assessment order prior to draft order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act and without providing opportunity of hearing is bad in law 13

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

c) in AY 2013-14 and Ground No. 2 in AY 2014-15 relate to disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- and Rs, 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A of the Act respectively. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 4 at page 27-30 of his order for AY 2013-14. On query the assessee submitted

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

c) in AY 2013-14 and Ground No. 2 in AY 2014-15 relate to disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- and Rs, 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A of the Act respectively. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 4 at page 27-30 of his order for AY 2013-14. On query the assessee submitted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

c) in AY 2013-14 and Ground No. 2 in AY 2014-15 relate to disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- and Rs, 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A of the Act respectively. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 4 at page 27-30 of his order for AY 2013-14. On query the assessee submitted

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

c) in AY 2013-14 and Ground No. 2 in AY 2014-15 relate to disallowance of Rs. 1,05,63,232/- and Rs, 1,16,97,590/- under section 14A of the Act respectively. The Ld. AO discussed this issue in para 4 at page 27-30 of his order for AY 2013-14. On query the assessee submitted

NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

disallowance stands made. 30. Thus, we have to examine clause (B) and whether the explanation offered was bona fide. Clause (B) of Explanation 1, applies when an assessee offer an explanation but it has not been able to substantiate it. In 2014:DHC:5004-DB ITA Nos. 182/2002 & 255/2003 Page 21 of 26 the present case, the assessee had offered

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

disallowance of donations made has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 2.27. In the present case, however, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty simply on the ground that the addition made, was affirmed by the Hon’ble Tribunal, which is contrary to the legal position elaborately discussed supra. 2.28. For this reason, too, the penalty imposed