ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) also did not tick the exact charge for levy of penalty. 4. Perusal of the above para of the assessment order categorically shows that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings considering the surrendered income as reported in return under section 153A of the act as concealment of income under section 271

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271 of the Act it is not discernible as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and therefore, the impugned penalty order deserves to be cancelled." 4.3.1. The Ground has been considered and found to be devoid

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

112 ITR 592 (Cal.) the appellant after filing full and detailed particulars with all material relevant to 9 ITA No4677 /Del./2009 assessment before the ITO raised the legal contention before the [TO that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of devalued loss, increased depreciation and development rebate. The above claim was not accepted by the [TO and penalty

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

112/-imposed u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case and detailed submissions made by the appellant. 4. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised before him. 5. That the order imposing penalty is bad in law and void ab initio since in the show cause

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

112/-imposed u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case and detailed submissions made by the appellant. 4. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating Ground Nos. 2 & 3 raised before him. 5. That the order imposing penalty is bad in law and void ab initio since in the show cause