NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

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

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Authorized

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, 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

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

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

124(3), the jurisdiction can be challenged within limited time period (maximum one month from date of receipt of relevant notice). The relevant portion of the section is reproduced as under. "(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return under sub-section (1) of section

M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

u/s 271 (1) ( c ) of act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is stated that levy of penalty is illegal, unjust and not in accordance with law. It has further raised as a ground that addition made by learned assessing officer is based on difference of opinion because of allowability of claim of assessee

M/S. NEEMRANA HOTELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Neemrana Hotels Private Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Vs A-20B Lajpat Nagar-2, Circle 13(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Shivesh Pandiya, Adv. Department By: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

u/s 271 read with Sec 274 served on the assessee was vague as it did not specify the charge against the assessee on which the Assessing Officer (AO) wanted to levy the penalty. It was submitted that the notice issued was vague, illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence, the subsequent penalty proceedings and the penalty order passed were also illegal

KARAMJIT SINGH DHANJAL,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are different than those applied for making or confirming the additions. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. QUANTUM LAND & HOUSING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 271(1)(c) and the same is deleted.” 11. Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgement in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra). Hon’ble Apex Court has decided the identical issue in the case cited as CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), the operative part of which is reproduced as under: “PENALTY – CNCEALMENT OF INCOME

RAM KUMAR GUPTA,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), MEERUT

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act?” 7. The ld. AR for the assessee challenging impugned order contented that penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable on the grounds inter alia that AO, at the time of passing the assessment order, has not made himself satisfied as to under which limb of section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

124, Ground Floor, World Trade Centre, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACN4109N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Adesh Kumar Jain, Rajat Jain and Akshant Jain, CAs REVENUE BY : Ms. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 08.11.2017 Date of Order : 16.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH : 2 ITA Nos.2730 to 2733/Del./2014 Since common questions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., NEW DELHI

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

124, Ground Floor, World Trade Centre, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAACN4109N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Adesh Kumar Jain, Rajat Jain and Akshant Jain, CAs REVENUE BY : Ms. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 08.11.2017 Date of Order : 16.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENCH : 2 ITA Nos.2730 to 2733/Del./2014 Since common questions