SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) can be imposed to assess the capital gain as per the provisions of section 50C/2

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 :-

u/s 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above discussion the profit from sale of shares and mutual funds is treated as business income instead of capital gain as declared by the assessee. The undersigned is also satisfied that the assessee by claiming business income of Rs.367,965,338/- [368782299 (assessed business income) - 816961 (declared business

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

u/s 271 (1 )(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High 4 Shyam Sunder Kansal Vs. ITO Court in the case

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), if the capital gain is treated as a long term capital gain.” 3. Brief

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain for Rs.17,13,015/- is\nadded to the income of the assessee has not declared in its return. In\nview of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that\nthe assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of its\nincome, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain surrendered, on 05.12.2017 under section 143(3) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 7. The Ld. AO issued penalty notice dated 05.12.2017 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 8. In response the assessee filed a detailed reply

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain in the stock was abnormally high compared to other stocks. Thus, it cannot be denied that the assesee used the tool of penny stock as one-off investment to claim bogus exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. The AO had rightly initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act while finalizing the assessment order as the assessee

MEENA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 43(6), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Meena Singhal, Vs Ito, C-3/52,Rajashthali Apartment, Ward-43(6), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. New Delhi. Pan-Acaps1872L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2023

capital gain on sale of shares. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact mere additions per se cannot be the basis for imposing the penalty u/s 271

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,01,39,072/- on account of being long term capital gain

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

capital gain interest and other sources. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty

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

capital gains on sale of land and building and could not substantiate his claim about purchase of another house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271

ANMOL ARORA,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

capital gain, (purportedly earned through purchase and sale of sales of Delta leasing Finance Ltd.). 4. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s 271

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14,NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

penalty of Rs. 12,36,814/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 3. There is a delay of 11 days in filing appeal by the assessee. Finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be plausible and reasonable, we condone the delay. 4. Brief facts

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income for which penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)( c) are initiated

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income for which penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)( c) are initiated