M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271

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

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

income, penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) are being initiated separately." (B.l) As mentioned earlier, the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act for both the Assessment years i.e. for 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 30.08.2013 for AY 2010-11 and vide order dated

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271