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

154 of the Act empowers such authority to correct a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The power of appeal and revision is contained in Chapter XX of the Act which includes Section 263 that confer suomotu power of revision in the learned CI. T. The different shades of power conferred on different authorities under

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

154 of the Act empowers such authority to correct a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The power of appeal and revision is contained in Chapter XX of the Act which includes Section 263 that confer suomotu power of revision in the learned CI. T. The different shades of power conferred on different authorities under

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

154 of the Act empowers such authority to correct a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The power of appeal and revision is contained in Chapter XX of the Act which includes Section 263 that confer suomotu power of revision in the learned CI. T. The different shades of power conferred on different authorities under

SPIRIT INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) read with order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In all the appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification

SPIRIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) read with order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In all the appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification

SPIRIT GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) read with order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In all the appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification

SPIRIT GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) read with order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In all the appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification

M/S. JRK AUTO PARTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

154. It has not been brought on record that Assessing Officer has rectified his mistake and has revised his assessment and demand by taking into account the aforesaid adjustment. In absence of such rectification or revision of the assessment order, we are of the opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

rectification order is passed. He also stated that the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, what is required for adjudication is only the subsequent appeal of the assessee which is filed by him against the order u/s 154 dated

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

rectification order is passed. He also stated that the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, what is required for adjudication is only the subsequent appeal of the assessee which is filed by him against the order u/s 154 dated

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

rectification order is passed. He also stated that the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, what is required for adjudication is only the subsequent appeal of the assessee which is filed by him against the order u/s 154 dated

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

rectification order is passed. He also stated that the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, what is required for adjudication is only the subsequent appeal of the assessee which is filed by him against the order u/s 154 dated

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

rectification order is passed. He also stated that the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, what is required for adjudication is only the subsequent appeal of the assessee which is filed by him against the order u/s 154 dated

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

rectification order is passed. He also stated that the assessee has filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. In the above circumstances, in our opinion, what is required for adjudication is only the subsequent appeal of the assessee which is filed by him against the order u/s 154 dated

AGEMO EXIM LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, MEERUT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Agemo Exim Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Agemo Leather Ward-1(1), Components Pvt. Ltd ) Meerut Ashwani Kumar Jain, Managing Director, 82/1, Railway Road, Meerut City, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabca9965E (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, there is no case for rectification u/s 154

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 dated 21.01.2013. After receiving the order of Id. CIT(A), the Id. AO started penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c). After considering the explanation of the appellant, the Id. AO levied penalty total additions of Rs.54,72,05,227/- i.e. the additions made as per the assessment order dated 28.12.2011 for assessment year

RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

154 of the Act for seeking rectification in the assessment order and proceeded to impose penalty by taking into consideration irrelevant allegation of bonafide mistake, mens rea, etc. It is well accepted proposition of law that penalty u/s 271

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

154. 5th 31.05.2013 ITAT decided the quantum appeal. 6th 30.03.2013 The penalty order was passed by assessing officer. 7. It was submitted by Ld. Sr. Counsel that in the present case in the light of provisions of Section 275(1)(a) of the Act, penalty order could not have been passed after 31.03.2010 i.e. the financial year in which