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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10 & 170/Del/2015 [Assessment Year : 2005-06] 37. Both the cross-appeals are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 20.10.2014 for AY 2005-06, challenging the levy of penalty' and cancellation of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The AO vide separate order- levied the penalty u/s 271

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

10 (undisclosed cash of Rs.5.225 crores) , paragraph 12 ( undisclosed income in respect of the project amounting to Rs.11,56,54,507/-). 11.8 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the total amount of Rs.1,33,19,328/- which consisted of Rs.37,53,853/- and Rs.95

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

10 (undisclosed cash of Rs.5.225 crores) , paragraph 12 ( undisclosed income in respect of the project amounting to Rs.11,56,54,507/-). 11.8 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the total amount of Rs.1,33,19,328/- which consisted of Rs.37,53,853/- and Rs.95

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

10 (undisclosed cash of Rs.5.225 crores) , paragraph 12 ( undisclosed income in respect of the project amounting to Rs.11,56,54,507/-). 11.8 The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the total amount of Rs.1,33,19,328/- which consisted of Rs.37,53,853/- and Rs.95

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

penalties levied u/s 271(l)(c) for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12. (C) During appellate proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ld. CIT (DR) filed written submissions dated 29.06.2016 on behalf of Revenue. The assessee ITA Nos. 2239, 2240/Del/2014 submitted paper book consisting of 129 pages and also separately filed synopsis dated 01.08.2016 which included rejoinder dated

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

37 and 38 of the assessment order). On account of these 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