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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai & Assessment Year:- 2006-07 Sh. Shyam Sunder Jindal Vs. Acit, Central Circle 30 12 A, Green Avenue New Delhi Sector D, Pocket 3 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aagpj 0184 N

u/s 142(1) of the Act. " A.Y. 2006-07 Sh. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi (Pages 1 to 3 of the Paper book) 1.2.5 On perusal of the impugned order, it is quite evident that the learned assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the 1ncome tax Act, 1961 only on the basis that the appellant

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

115 TTJ 419 (Delhi)] stating that as the assessment has been made under section 143 (3) and not under section 144 of the income tax act, means that the subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as a good compliance and the default committed earlier were ignored by the assessing officer and therefore the penalty under section 271

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

115-O(5), no deduction was allowable with respect to the 3 ITA No4677 /Del./2009 expenditure incurred in relation to dividend income which was exempted from tax. (vi) On the basis of the relevant calculations, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs.3,07,77,285/- and as a consequence, penalty proceedings were initiated against the Assessee under Section

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

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

115 to 123 of the paper book, shows that the AO has made written observations without applying his mind to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by recording following findings :- “I am satisfied that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(l)(b) of the Act on the appellant is unwarranted and is judicial harassment of the appellant. The law cannot be twisted so as first to demand compliance from an assessee in excess of the statutory powers and then, levy penalty for not meeting the illegal demands. 17. Further, the assessment order was finally passed under section

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA & SONS (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Subhash Chand Gupta & Ito Sons (Huf) Vs Ward – 35 (4) 43/1, Rajpura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110054 Pan No.Aabhs2009G (Appellant) (Respondent)

115 BBE of the IT Act on account of sale of shares of M/s.CCL International Limited which were purchased at a cost of Rs.6,10,000/- but sold at Rs.18,57,743/- within a period of 8 months from the date of purchase and on which concessional rate of tax was claimed. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

u/s 271 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. For the reasons explained hereafter the Court is of the view that the above question requires to be reframed. Background facts 4. The background facts require to be narrated. The Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of soft drinks. On 11th November 1998 it entered into

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

115-JC and under general provisions, such amount shall not be reduced from total income assessed while determining the amount under Item D. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "preceding order" means an order immediately preceding the order during the course of which the penalty under sub-section (1) has been initiated; (b) in a case where

M/S TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 142(1) of the Act. He submitted that first notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.12.2014 and on said date, counsel of the assessee attended and matter was adjourned to 07.01.2015. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer issued one more notice under section 142(1) on 2nd January, 2015 which according to the Assessing

M/S TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 142(1) of the Act. He submitted that first notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.12.2014 and on said date, counsel of the assessee attended and matter was adjourned to 07.01.2015. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer issued one more notice under section 142(1) on 2nd January, 2015 which according to the Assessing

M/S TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 142(1) of the Act. He submitted that first notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 11.12.2014 and on said date, counsel of the assessee attended and matter was adjourned to 07.01.2015. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer issued one more notice under section 142(1) on 2nd January, 2015 which according to the Assessing

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full