JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(l)(c) of the Act issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer does not indicate the specific charge for which penalty p,, mgs were initiated. It is submitted that the Order imposing penalty u/section 271(l)(c) is vitiated and may accordingly be quashed / struck/ b / set aside as bad in law and without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that

INSTITUTE OF HAEMATOLOGY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD- 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute Of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati4626P Assessee By : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Of Rs.68,598/- Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was applicable to the facts of the present case and that the assessee was deemed to have concealed particulars of income which was liable for the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the decisions relied by the assessee were distinguishable on facts. Accordingly

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

DEHRADUN PUBLIC SCHOOL,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ITA No. 1387/del/2016 for assessment year 2011 – 12 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 271 (1) (c) is illegal and bad in law. 9. The Assessing Officer/CIT(A) has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Appellant to place the evidence/details on record to substantiate its claim during the assessment proceedings. 10. That, the penalty proceedings have been initiated and imposed without any specific charges, hence, the same

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1 , NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1 , NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1 , NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08

12A, Green Avenue, Sector- Central Circle -30, D, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAGPJ0184N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Mrs. Deepashree Rao, CA Respondent by Mrs. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT Date of hearing 12.07.2021 Date of pronouncement 16.07.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 22/02/2018

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.1992 declaring nil income. The assessee was registered u/s 12A of the Act and claiming its income exempt from tax u/s

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.1992 declaring nil income. The assessee was registered u/s 12A of the Act and claiming its income exempt from tax u/s

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

penalty levied by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.1992 declaring nil income. The assessee was registered u/s 12A of the Act and claiming its income exempt from tax u/s

M/S. GREENFIELDS PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

penalty can be levied. 4. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has made the application seeking registration u/s 12A of the Act on the last day of filing of return for the Assessment Year 2006-07. He submitted that it is an afterthought as both the application as well as the return, are even dated

G.D. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty U/S 271(1)(c), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : assessee society being registered under section 12A

G.D. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty U/S 271(1)(c), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : assessee society being registered under section 12A

PRITY GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

u/s 68 which discretion has not been judiciously exercised in facts of present case as assessee has no economic capacity and source to generate given amount of unaccounted income. Fourthly law requires that additions under said deeming fiction cannot be made sans incriminating material brought on record which is completely lacking in present case. 13. That in any case