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)

depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in 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)

depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MINERALS MANAGEMENTS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty levied by the Assessing officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Minerals Managements Services India P. Ltd. 2 2. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceeding, it was seen that the assessee had claimed depreciation

ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

depreciation on land portion was disallowed and added to the assessee’s income. In these facts, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied

M/S. PROFORM INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedia N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

Depreciation on building 5,28,425/- 5. Interest capitalized-building construction. 22,99,100/- 6. On account of purchases / Sales not proved. 98,88,238/- 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before the CIT (Appeals) who deleted the addition on account of purchases amounting to Rs.98,88,238/- but confirmed the rest

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

u/s 271(l)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said HC decision had not considered the provisions of sec.292B, also notes that

METRO TYRES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

depreciation on non compete fee. The penalty proceedings have been initiated against the assessee and an order of penalty came to be passed u/s 271

CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing & All The Above Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other.”

u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 27/06/2019 levying penalty amounting to Rs.51,993/- in respect of the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,68,463/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in Page 3 of 14 Central News Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT the office of Ld. CIT(A) against order levying penalty

NEELAM GARG,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD NO. 3, KARNAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargneelam Garg, Vs. Ito, Hem Chand Jain, H. No. 2, Ward No. 3, Huda Staff Owarter, No. 1, Karnal Sector-13, Extn, Karnal, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpg2119D Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2023

271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, categorically states that penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars alone, the assessee does not ipso facto become liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

depreciation of Rs. 1,41,343/- The AO was of the view that with respect to the aforesaid additions that were made, assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and therefore liable for penalty u/s. 271

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

depreciation of Rs. 1,41,343/- The AO was of the view that with respect to the aforesaid additions that were made, assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and therefore liable for penalty u/s. 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. LAKHANI ARMAN SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation amounting to Rs. 13,61,120/-; and disallowance of excess material consumption claimed amounting to Rs. 3,16,71,631/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

AGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Agarwal Packers & Movers Ltd., Vs Dcit, Wedding Mall, 3Rd Floor, Local Central Circle-1(2), Shopping Centre, Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aafca3559A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By Mrs. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2022 Order

penalty proceedings in the assessment order u/s 143(3) and subsequently by way of show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271, the AO has not apprise the assessee about the specific charge, under which assessee has been held guilty of penal action.” FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that

M/S. CELLCAST INTERACTIVE INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Astha Chandra

depreciation to be carried forward Rs.3,23,47,939/-. There were two disallowances made in the assessment order i.e. (i) creditors amounting to Rs. 20,96,496/- and (ii) computer hire charges amounting to Rs.33,372/-. Simultaneously, penalty u/s 271

JCIT(OSD) RANGE -10, NEW DELHI , ITO vs. GWALIOR BYPASS PROJECT LTD. , NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

depreciation as admissible on intangible assets. Thus, grounds rasied by the assessee are allowed.” 5.2 In view of the fact of the quantum addition being deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, the basis of penalty order passed by the AO vide order dated 19.03.2020 levying penalty of Rs. 3,52,22,000/- u/s 271

ITO, WARD 4 vs. FLORA EXPORTS,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

depreciation as admissible on intangible assets. Thus, grounds rasied by the assessee are allowed.” 5.2 In view of the fact of the quantum addition being deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, the basis of penalty order passed by the AO vide order dated 19.03.2020 levying penalty of Rs. 3,52,22,000/- u/s 271

BITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9803/Del/2019 (A.Y 2007-08)

depreciation and deleted the entire disallowance made out of the expenses. 4 BITS Information Technology Solutions 4. The penalty proceedings has been initiated against the assessee and penalty order u/s 271

TAHILIANI DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CC-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Depreciation – 2 ITA 5204/Del/2016 2012-13 62.21 lakhs Rs.31.25 Lakhs (arising out of AY 2008-09) 2. Section 40a)(ia) – Rs.1.48 lakhs 3. Cessation of liability – Rs.29.48 lakhs 3 ITA 65/Del/2020 2012-13 Penalty u/s 271