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)

exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, as the new asset had never come into existence within the timespecified u/s. 54F of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, in respect of quantum addition on account of addition to Book Profit U/s 115JB of I.T. Act. (4) The Ld. Counsel for Assessee has filed copy of judicial precedents in the case of M/s Neha Home Builders (P) Ltd. (supra), in which view was taken that the amount of Page

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1.)(c) was a "complete non-starter". A mere erroneous claim made by an assessee, though under a bonafide belief that, it was a claim which was maintainable in law cannot lead to an imposition of penalty. The claim for deduction was made in a bona fide manner and the information with respect to the claims was provided

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) especially the limb -fumishing inaccurate particulars of income in spite of the fact that the claim of deduction/ exemption

JAGDISH PRASAD BHARAT KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

exempted u/s 10(38) and treated it as income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same was accordingly added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

JAGDISH PRASAD AVDESH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

exempted u/s 10(38) and treated it as income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same was accordingly added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S SUCON INDIA LTD, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act was, 3 thus, levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on the complete loss of Rs. 27,63,30,230/-, i.e., including both, the amount of loss setoff against income as well as the loss which is not setoff. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeal of the assessee

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act appellant is not entitled to take any benefit from exemption of penalty u/s. 271

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act appellant is not entitled to take any benefit from exemption of penalty u/s. 271

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act appellant is not entitled to take any benefit from exemption of penalty u/s. 271

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act appellant is not entitled to take any benefit from exemption of penalty u/s. 271

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act appellant is not entitled to take any benefit from exemption of penalty u/s. 271

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act appellant is not entitled to take any benefit from exemption of penalty u/s. 271

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act appellant is not entitled to take any benefit from exemption of 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

penalty notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.12.2011 and 15.02.2013 placed at page no. 20-22 of the Paper Book 4 are reproduced as under: “ ITA No.-.3083 & 3084/Del/2017 M/s PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.-.3083 & 3084/Del/2017 M/s PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are disposed

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

penalty notices u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30.12.2011 and 15.02.2013 placed at page no. 20-22 of the Paper Book 4 are reproduced as under: “ ITA No.-.3083 & 3084/Del/2017 M/s PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.-.3083 & 3084/Del/2017 M/s PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are disposed

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c ) cannot be levied only on the ground on which additions have been made in the assessment order. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: - CIT vs. Transceivers India Ltd., 2015-TIOL-338-HC- DEL "7 That ultimately such expenditure was disallowed on merits could not automatically result in the imposition of a penalty, akin

SATPAL SAINI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

271 (1 )(c) as initiated by the Ld. AO on the grounds of incurable defect in the notice issued by the Ld. AO u/s 274 before the Ld. AO in the course of the penalty proceedings conducted by the Ld. AO as the appellant had sufficient and reasonable opportunity of contesting the maintainability of the proceedings at the very threshold