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

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

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

124 ITR 01 was not accepted. 10. In the impugned order relating to penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Tribunal has again adopted the said reasoning and has observed as under:- “In the appeal of the revenue to the tribunal, the Tribunal has categorically given a finding that the write off under the revenue head

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

124/- 16A Q4 Form 30.05.2013 18.06.2013 19 171 2,61,838/- 16A Total 24,59,362/- 5. As stated earlier, since the TDS remittance details and challan numbers are to be reflected in the TDS Certificate in Form 16A and that the same could be reflected only after the remittance of TDS amounts, the assessee was Paramount Villas

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

Penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act,1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nwithin the meaning of explanation1 to the sub-section (1) of the section\n271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated.\nAddition: Rs. 44,05,518/-\nThe issue on merits at the heart of the matter is allowability

ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN vs. SANJAY GHAI, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order more so when the charge on penalty notice dated 27.03.2003 was not specified as to whether penalty is being initiated for "concealment of particulars

ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN vs. SANJAY GHAI, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order more so when the charge on penalty notice dated 27.03.2003 was not specified as to whether penalty is being initiated for "concealment of particulars

ASSISTANT COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumaracit, Vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Bharati Delhi Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Co No. 82/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 2759/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Tata Teleservices Ltd, Vs. Acit, 124, 10Th Floor, Jeevan Delhi Bharati Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaact2438A Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Divyanshu Singla, Ca Shri Prateek Chauhan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No.2759/Del/2024 For Ay 2007-08, Arises Out Of The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Nfac‟, In Short] In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1063789663(1) Dated 31.03.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 30.03.2018 By The Assessing Officer, Acit, Circle-25(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

124, 10th Floor, Jeevan Delhi Bharati Tower-I, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAACT2438A Assessee by : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Divyanshu Singla, CA Shri Prateek Chauhan, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 09/10/2024 Date of pronouncement 11/10/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri [Dr.] B.R.R. Kumar

124/-, on account of non-deduction of tax on payments being made for External Development Charges (EDC) paid / payable to HUDA and while sustaining the instant penalty, the learned CIT (A) has proceeded on irrelevant and extraneous considerations, relying on case laws not applicable to the facts of the case of assessee - appellant and as such the penalty so sustained

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri [Dr.] B.R.R. Kumar

124/-, on account of non-deduction of tax on payments being made for External Development Charges (EDC) paid / payable to HUDA and while sustaining the instant penalty, the learned CIT (A) has proceeded on irrelevant and extraneous considerations, relying on case laws not applicable to the facts of the case of assessee - appellant and as such the penalty so sustained

ASHOK KUMAR GROVER,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee

VENKATESH RAGHAV RAO HEBBANI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

124) and CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (322 ITR 158). 4. Erroneous Confirmation of Penalty: The CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating that:  TDS was already deducted by the employer.  Relevant taxes on the immovable property transaction were duly paid under Section 194IA.  No deliberate intention of concealment existed on the appellant's part. 5. Non-Applicability

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

271 (1) (c) on the ground that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) by an order dated 30th December, 2004 confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, on second appeal the ITAT by its order dated 29th July, 2005 deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

271 (1) (c) on the ground that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) by an order dated 30th December, 2004 confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, on second appeal the ITAT by its order dated 29th July, 2005 deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

u/s 270A are also proposed to be initiated as the assessee has under reported its income.” 46. In this regard, it is submitted that the aforesaid assumption of the assessing officer is far-fetched and without any basis; even assuming for the sake of argument that the know-how has been generated as a result of R&D services rendered

VIKAS SINGHAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of DCIT vs JMD Advisors Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.1464/Del/2007 and the decision in the case of ACIT vs Prakash Industries Ltd. in ITA No.6230/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year 1996-97 dated 19.02.2016 wherein the Tribunal has held

PARAG DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Penalty Order under New Delhi order dated section 271(1)(c) of order dated 30.06.2015 the Income Tax Act, 28.11.2017 1961. 13. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order New Delhi order dated under section 143(3) order dated 18.03.2015 of the Income Tax Act, 03.11.2017 1961. 14. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order