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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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 was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, A0 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Disallowed (as discussed) Para in 9 Rs.14,65,490/- Total Taxable Income Rs.3,91,88,346/- 4.1. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

penalty u/s 271(1Hc) on addition made by disallowing expenditures on percentage basis Ld CIT reduced the penalty u/s 271

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

disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under: “ 36. As assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty

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

disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under: “ 36. As assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty

VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Kashyap & Co., Circle-26(2), 114, Citi Centre, New Delhi. B.B. Road, Meerut. Pan: Aaccv2294C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.S. Kashyap, Fca Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & In Law Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)( C) Of The Act Is Not Maintainable. Ld. Ao Has Given Notice Without Specifying Whether There Is Concealment Of Income Or Assessee Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Is Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law Imposing The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C ) For Rs. 77,47,664/- Is Totally Wrong, Unjustified & Illegal. The Appellant Had Never Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Concealed Income At Any Stage Of Assessment Proceedings As Well As In Penalty Proceedings. The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Ought To Be Deleted In Full.”

disallowance u/s 43B on account of interest on bank loan amounting to Rs.1,95,07,494/-. Therefore, the AO initiated penalty proceedings on the basis 3 that the assessee had filed revised return after its case was picked up for scrutiny. Therefore, penalty has to be levied on the assessee u/s 271

CHOWDRY ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargchowdry Associates Vs. Acit 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle – 6(1) 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi New Delhi-110 002

disallowance u/s 94(7) of the Act of Rs.5,18,286/-. On the aforesaid additions/disallowances made, AO vide penalty order passed on 28.03.2018 levied penalty of Rs.2,10,356/- u/s 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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.84,97,000/- in respect of the addition of Rs.2.50 crores i.e. the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

disallowance u/s 35(2)(AB) of the Act at INR 1,76,87,054/- and relief claimed u/s 90 of the Act of INR 24,37,344/- was restricted to NIL. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders