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

113 {Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 187 TIJ 243 (Mumbai - Trib.): Wherein the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held as under: "6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, a perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

113 {Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 187 TIJ 243 (Mumbai - Trib.): Wherein the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held as under: "6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, a perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

113 ITD 133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

113 ITD 133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

113 ITD 133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

113 ITD 133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

113 ITD 133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

section 271 of the Act. With regard to this additional ground, the following submissions are made for the kind consideration of the Hon'ble Bench: The ground raised by the appellant itself deserves not to be admitted for the following reasons: I) The said ground has not been raised by the appellant either at the stage of penalty proceedings

ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

113 (Mumbai), DCIT vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) etc. and contended that when 5 ITA No.2789/Del./2017 in the assessment order relevant limb of section 271(1)(c) i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has been invoked, it was sufficient to attract the provisions contained u/s 271

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

u/s 271(1)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said HC decision had not considered the provisions of sec.292B, also notes that

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

section 271(1)(e) the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed income or offers an explanation which is found to be false by the assessing authority

SH. KARAN KHURANA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Penalty U/S 271(1)(c) Income Tax Officer, New Delhi. & 2698/Del./2015 Dated : 24.02.2014 To Sh. Karna Khurana, Prop. M/s. Karan Dyes & Chemicals, Laxmi Tex Precessions, 113

SH. KARAN KHURANA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Penalty U/S 271(1)(c) Income Tax Officer, New Delhi. & 2698/Del./2015 Dated : 24.02.2014 To Sh. Karna Khurana, Prop. M/s. Karan Dyes & Chemicals, Laxmi Tex Precessions, 113

SH. KARAN KHURANA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Penalty U/S 271(1)(c) Income Tax Officer, New Delhi. & 2698/Del./2015 Dated : 24.02.2014 To Sh. Karna Khurana, Prop. M/s. Karan Dyes & Chemicals, Laxmi Tex Precessions, 113

SH. KARAN KHURANA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Penalty U/S 271(1)(c) Income Tax Officer, New Delhi. & 2698/Del./2015 Dated : 24.02.2014 To Sh. Karna Khurana, Prop. M/s. Karan Dyes & Chemicals, Laxmi Tex Precessions, 113

SHRI SANJAY MITTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(l)(c) the Assessing Officer has levied penalty since the said show-cause notice issued u/s 274 does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty order passed u/s. 271 (1) (c) in pursuance to the said notice

SH. SWAMI SHARAN GARG,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

113 (Mumbai), DCIT vs. Shahrukh Khan – (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.), Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – ITA Nos.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009. 9. To proceed further, we would like to reproduce notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for ready perusal :- “NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Dated

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

u/s 271(l)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said HC decision had not considered the provisions of sec.292B, also notes that