M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

penalty as bad in law and void ab initio since in the show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 the learned assessing officer has not struck of the relevant clause of the notice, meaning thereby that the AO has not apprised the issue about the specific charge, under which assessee has been held guilty

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? DCIT Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowances made by the AO on account of claim of loss on account of Mark to Market

M/S ALP OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

u/s 271(1)(c) were not warranted. The proposal in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings against the assessee after re-opening was liable to be quashed. Mahendra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 94 Taxman 3: (1997) 140 CTR 331: (1997) 226 ITR 718 (MP) 6.4 S. 271 - Penalty for accidental and inadvertent mistake in disclosing correct income

SMT. RITA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri C. M. Garg

127 TTJ 100(Mumbai). I.T.A. 6815/D/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 5. The third and last submission of the assessee is that deeming dividend is a fiction created by law and the same is not acceptable to levy penalty so as to raise a presumption about concealment of income and to support this proposition, reliance has been placed on the judgment

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

127 pages was filed before the Additional CIT giving reasons as to why penalty should not be imposed under Sections 271D and 271E. The summary of the reply is as below:- (a) The assessee, being a mutual benefit company under the Companies Act, can accept the loans or deposits only from its share holders or members who are known

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

127 pages was filed before the Additional CIT giving reasons as to why penalty should not be imposed under Sections 271D and 271E. The summary of the reply is as below:- (a) The assessee, being a mutual benefit company under the Companies Act, can accept the loans or deposits only from its share holders or members who are known

NIRIPRAJ SINGH SOHAL,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

127/- was filed. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not file the return of income despite substantial income and only filed it after the notice u/s

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (C) of the income tax act, 1961 by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, central circle – 20, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per order dated 28/3/2013 of INR 9507003/–. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6476/Del/2013:- “1. That the learned

M/S. ALPNA PACKAGING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoalpna Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Ito, Alpna Cinema Building, Ward-1(3), Vs. Model Town, New Delhi Delhi Pan:Aacca9729K (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The ld AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Punjab Rice Mills Vs. CIT, 211 Taxmann 127 (Ald) and submitted that explanation to section

URMILLA GHANSHYAM DASS GHIRAIYA,DELHI vs. DCIT, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 145/Del/2017 िनधा*रण वष*/Assessment Year. 2012-13

section 127(2) dated 18.02.2016. 2. Whether the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts of the case by imposing penalty u/s 271

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

GAJENDER SINGH JADON,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-57(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2006-07 Gajender Singh Jadon, Vs. Acit, Circle-57(5), C-2/785, Street No. 14, New Delhi. 2 Pushta Road, Sonia Vihar, New Delhi. Pan Ahipj6180B (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1X0 of Rs.4,36,060/- is arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 8. That the levy of penalty is illegal, unjust and not in accordance with law as the mandatory requirements of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act have not been met in the instant case. 9. That in the absence of satisfaction in the assessment order

PTC ENERGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

127/- has been disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. Consequent to the assessment order a penalty proceedings have been initiated and vide order dated 31/07/2019, the Ld. A.O has passed an order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by imposing penalty of Rs. 12,66,900/-. 4. As against the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal before

M/S. SHRUTI FASTENERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 23.12.2011. 3. Against the above Penalty Order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer, assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide impugned order dated 28.8.2012 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.8.2012, assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

127 of the Act. Proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated by issue of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and served on the assessee through ITBA. In response, the assessee submitted relevant details and clarifications from time to time. The return of income u/s 139 of the Act was filed on 14.01.2022 declaring income of Rs.6

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, NEW DELHI vs. ATUL KUMAR GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. b] Investment in the shares of M/s Orion Freight Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: AAAC07310C:- The company has share premium of Rs.3.86 Crs which were invested in unquoted govt. securities. Shares were allotted to dubious entities at premium of Rs.90/- per share. In A,Y. 2010-11, share of the company were acquired

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. RAJIV GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. b] Investment in the shares of M/s Orion Freight Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: AAAC07310C:- The company has share premium of Rs.3.86 Crs which were invested in unquoted govt. securities. Shares were allotted to dubious entities at premium of Rs.90/- per share. In A,Y. 2010-11, share of the company were acquired