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

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

2 & 3 raised before him. 5. That the order imposing penalty is bad in law and void ab initio since in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 the Id. AO has not struck off the irrelevant clause of the notice, meaning thereby the AO has not apprise the assessee about the specific charge, under which

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

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

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)

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? DCIT Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

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

127 OF 20131 JUNE 25,2013 Section 271(1)(c), read with section 115JB, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income [Wrong claim, effect of] - Assessee's claim with respect to depreciation and capital loss was found erroneous- When said fact was brought to assessee's notice, it offered amount of difference for taxation -Assessing Officer

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

271 (1) (c) of the Act for the above additions were successfully represented by the same previous counsel before CIT (Appeals). Departmental appeals against the deletion of penalties were dismissed. 7. Appeals against additions u/s 2 (22) (e) for the three years 2005-06 to 2007- 08 were also being represented till last year by the same previous counsel.It

SUBHASH GUJAR,JHAJJAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 292BB of the Act to buttress the contention that non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) would not vitiate the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. I find that the Assessing Officer has observed as under: “As per record, to enquire into the source of above deposits, various notices were issued from this office to the assessee but nothing

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

127 of the Act but no such order of transfer of the case has been made. In the light of the above noted circumstances, their Lordships held that the notice issued by the AO of Bangalore cannot be regarded as a valid notice and the notice issued by the AO of Delhi having jurisdiction over the assessee

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

127 of the Act but no such order of transfer of the case has been made. In the light of the above noted circumstances, their Lordships held that the notice issued by the AO of Bangalore cannot be regarded as a valid notice and the notice issued by the AO of Delhi having jurisdiction over the assessee

P M NARGUNAM,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 304/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) बनाम P M Nargunam, Acit No. 1, Santosh Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-6, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aaepn9976E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are further wrong as against the law and to the facts of the case. 17. That the appellant assails her right to amend, alter or change any grounds of appeal at any time even during the course of hearing of this instant appeal.” The assessee has raised the following additional

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

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

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

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

127 V. Bank statement of IDBI Bank from 01.03.2013 to 31.03.2014 128 vi. Intimation U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for '129-134 assessment year 2014-15 M/s Radha Ballabh Nest-build Private Limited i. auditors report and balance sheet and profit and loss account for 135-146 FY 2013-14 relevant to assessment year