Search: penalty u/s 271

5 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 115Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)10 Section 153C8 Section 445 Section 115J4 Section 115B4 Section 139(1)4 Deduction4 Penalty4 Addition to Income4 Disallowance3 Set Off of Losses3 Section 143(2)2

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

115B of the Act applicable for companies in life insurance business, thereby granting part-relief to the Appellant. 1.10. In the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged aforesaid action of the CIT(A)/ assessing officer in imposing penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. 2. Appellant’s contentions before the Hon’ble Tribunal 2.1. It is respectfully submitted

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

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

SAMPARK HOTELS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

M/S. FIXOPAN MACHINES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI