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) which is bad in law being beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation and contrary to the principles of natural justice

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271(1)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The grounds for levy of penalty are thus linked to the adherence to the Principle of natural justice and it was held that such Principle of natural justice should not be offended. Now, let's examine how the same is applicable in the facts

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271(1)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The grounds for levy of penalty are thus linked to the adherence to the Principle of natural justice and it was held that such Principle of natural justice should not be offended. Now, let's examine how the same is applicable in the facts

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271(1)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The grounds for levy of penalty are thus linked to the adherence to the Principle of natural justice and it was held that such Principle of natural justice should not be offended. Now, let's examine how the same is applicable in the facts

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271(1)(c) do not exist as such he is not liable to pay penalty. The grounds for levy of penalty are thus linked to the adherence to the Principle of natural justice and it was held that such Principle of natural justice should not be offended. Now, let's examine how the same is applicable in the facts

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

271(1)(c) for which penalty was to be imposed. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty in respect of addition of Rs.3,67,43,966/- (Share application Rs.1,50,00,000/- and unsecured loan Rs.2,17,43,966/-) under section 68 particularly

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

natural justice. 12. That Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), of the Act, is bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

natural justice. 12. That Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), of the Act, is bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

natural justice. 12. That Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), of the Act, is bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

natural justice. 12. That Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), of the Act, is bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred

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

natural justice as no case specific incriminating material is brought on records at any stage so as to draw adverse inference u/s 68 in wake of inundated documentary evidence which have remained totally uncontroverted and simply on basis of innocuous surrender from assessee , addition u/s 68 was made, which can never give rise to valid penalty 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

natural justice as no case specific incriminating material is brought on records at any stage so as to draw adverse inference u/s 68 in wake of inundated documentary evidence which have remained totally uncontroverted and simply on basis of innocuous surrender from assessee , addition u/s 68 was made, which can never give rise to valid penalty u/s 271

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s

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

The appeal is allowed

natural justice. [Tax effect Rs.1,24,89,274/-]\nBrief facts of the case:-\nThe assessee company had filed its\nreturn of income on 29.10.2005 declaring an income of Rs.9,05,490/-\nwhich was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment was\ncompleted u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2007 in which the following\nadditions were made.\n3\nITA Nos.9694

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

Appeal is allowed

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

justice and cannot be sustained. Thus once the proceedings are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid. The validity of the order of penalty must