DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty order dated 12.03.2018 was framed whereby penalty of Rs.53,02,440/- was imposed in I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018

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

Section 271(1)(c). The Court held that once the AO records satisfaction about concealment/inaccurate particulars, and the assessee fails to discharge the initial onus, penalty can be levied without separate detailed satisfaction. 3.8 The assessment order in the present case contains adequate reasons and satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, which cannot be questioned on technical grounds of notice drafting

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

Section 271(1)(c). The Court held that once the AO records satisfaction about concealment/inaccurate particulars, and the assessee fails to discharge the initial onus, penalty can be levied without separate detailed satisfaction. 3.8 The assessment order in the present case contains adequate reasons and satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, which cannot be questioned on technical grounds of notice drafting

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.84,97,000/- in respect of the addition of Rs.2.50 crores i.e. the disallowance of claim of donation paid by the assessee company. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, confirmed the penalty. 4. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT

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

4. It is a settled provision of law that notice issued by AO under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted and thus the penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the following judicial

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

The appeal is allowed

11-00 A.M. dt. 23/01/08\n35\n30\nSeal\nAssessing Officer\nIncome-Tax Officer\nWard-4 (2)\nNew Delhi\n*Delete inappropriate words and paragrapb\nsicer\n7\nITA Nos.9694 & 9695/Del/2019\nI.T.N.S.-29\nआयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 271 के साथ पढ़ी गई घारा 274 के अधीन नोटिस\nNOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME

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

section 68 particularly when onus which lied upon the assessee in penalty proceedings stood duly discharged accordingly, imposition of penalty is wholly erroneous, unjustified and bad in law. [Tax effect Rs.1,24,89,274/-] 4. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] Brief facts

UNITECH HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(supra) has held that non striking of irrelevant matter in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s

UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(supra) has held that non striking of irrelevant matter in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s

UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

4 has held that penalty initiated on one limb and levied on the other limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT(supra) has held that non striking of irrelevant matter in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

section 50C when 2 Shyam Sunder Kansal Vs. ITO after valuation by DVO Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) deleted major part of addition of AO and this addition is not an specific addition one. 3. Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the penalty on additions of FDR interest which the assessee sue moto surrendered as income before making

SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

4 Section153A pursuant to search under Section 132 of the Act having regard to the facts and circumstances existing in the case. 9.1 Multiple objections have been raised on behalf of the assessee to assail the imposition of penalty. The first and foremost objection borne out on behalf of the assessee is that the allegation on the exact nature