PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271(1)(c). page 10 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263. Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10. In sum and substance, his core argument is that the order passed under section 263 in the above captioned years, i.e. Assessment Years

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271(1)(c). page 10 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263. Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10. In sum and substance, his core argument is that the order passed under section 263 in the above captioned years, i.e. Assessment Years

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

revision under the said section, the Commissioner finds that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not a part of assessment proceedings. It was, thus, held that the Commissioner cannot pass an order u/s 263 of the Act pertaining to penalty. 3. Following the said judgment, with

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision order passed by the learned CIT u/s 263 is bad in law. (ii) That the assessing officer having dropped the penalty proceedings u/s 271

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

revision order passed by the learned CIT u/s 263 is bad in law. (ii) That the assessing officer having dropped the penalty proceedings u/s 271

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot direct the ld AO to initiate any penalty proceedings. This aspect is no longer res integra in view of the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the case of CIT (Central), Ludhiana Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

revised to the limited extent being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the issue of circle rate as fair market value has not been discussed in the assessment order. 13. Thus, there is substance in the argument of Ld. AR that merely on the basis of audit objection powers u/s 263 could not have been

M/S IRCON SOMA TOLLWAY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-4, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as\ninfructuous

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which\nthere was no direction u/s 263.\n5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in\ncharging interest under various section of IT Act, 1961.\n6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and\nwithdraw any grounds before or during the course of\nappellate

IRCON SOMA TOLLWAY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIALO RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as\ninfructuous

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which\nthere was no direction u/s 263.\n5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in\ncharging interest under various section of IT Act, 1961.\n6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and\nwithdraw any grounds before or during the course of\nappellate

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.”

263/- and did not appeal against the assessment order. This is understandable, because the assessee had itself appeal the amount for addition during assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, order 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

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court

SURIENDER JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 273 or 271(1)(c) of the Act. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: “Turning now to the case of penalty which is covered by the second question, the Tribunal held that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. On this part of the case, the decision of this court

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE (SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

revision vide order dated 30/03/2011 u/s 263 of the Act. In pursuance to the order u/s 263 of the Act, the reassessment was completed on 15/12/2011 u/s 253/143(3) of the Act against Sh. Ashok Malhotra at the income of Rs. 48,98,880/- against returned income of Rs. 2,82,384/- by making following additions

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE. SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

revision vide order dated 30/03/2011 u/s 263 of the Act. In pursuance to the order u/s 263 of the Act, the reassessment was completed on 15/12/2011 u/s 253/143(3) of the Act against Sh. Ashok Malhotra at the income of Rs. 48,98,880/- against returned income of Rs. 2,82,384/- by making following additions

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

revision vide order dated 30/03/2011 u/s 263 of the Act. In pursuance to the order u/s 263 of the Act, the reassessment was completed on 15/12/2011 u/s 253/143(3) of the Act against Sh. Ashok Malhotra at the income of Rs. 48,98,880/- against returned income of Rs. 2,82,384/- by making following additions

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

revision vide order dated 30/03/2011 u/s 263 of the Act. In pursuance to the order u/s 263 of the Act, the reassessment was completed on 15/12/2011 u/s 253/143(3) of the Act against Sh. Ashok Malhotra at the income of Rs. 48,98,880/- against returned income of Rs. 2,82,384/- by making following additions

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

revision vide order dated 30/03/2011 u/s 263 of the Act. In pursuance to the order u/s 263 of the Act, the reassessment was completed on 15/12/2011 u/s 253/143(3) of the Act against Sh. Ashok Malhotra at the income of Rs. 48,98,880/- against returned income of Rs. 2,82,384/- by making following additions