JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Disallowed (as\ndiscussed) Para in 9\nTotal Taxable Income\nRs.9,05,490/-\nRs.3,67,43,966/-\nRs.73,490/-\nRs.14,65,490/-\nRs.3,91,88,346/-\n4.1.\nThe AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct and issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act on\n28.12.2007. The assessee challenged the assessment order in appeal\nbefore

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

disallowance of the claim in the assessment proceedings could not be the sole basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

disallowance of project loss Rs. 37,87,77,488/-). The Assessing Officer (“AO”), while framing the assessment, also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 08.03.2016 u/s 274 read with section

SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowed deduction claimed of Rs.51,02,718/- under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer while making the aforesaid additions also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disallowed the said expenditure by applying provisions of section 14A of the Act and simultaneously levied penalty under section 271(1 )(c

ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271 (1)(c) is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4.1 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) – 18 New Delhi has erred in not appreciating that the entire basis, rationale for making disallowance

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 271(1)( c ) of the Act and by order dated 30/3/2015 and levied penalty of Rs. 13,31,04,779/- on the addition relating to the disallowance

KISSAN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of addition made on account of prior period expenses, on account of section 50C, on account of disallowance

SMT. SUMOHITA KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance of credit card expenses claimed by the assessee as 4 ITA No. 6472, 6473/Del./2016 well as on account of failure of the assessee to explain the source of acquisition of the jewellery. It is also not in dispute that identically worded notices u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(C

SMT. SUMOHITA KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowance of credit card expenses claimed by the assessee as 4 ITA No. 6472, 6473/Del./2016 well as on account of failure of the assessee to explain the source of acquisition of the jewellery. It is also not in dispute that identically worded notices u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(C