Search: penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

13. The respondent/assessee, neither during the assessment proceedings nor penalty proceedings, submittedthe details and documents justifying the genuineness of his claim under section 54F of the Act. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the assessee that it was not concealing his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof in the ITR. In the course of penalty

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act but the reason for initiation of penalty proceedings was not clear. Based on this the taxpayer did not respond to the penalty notice and tax officer levied a penalty of 100 percent of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the taxpayer challenged the validity of the penalty order before the Commissioner

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act but the reason for initiation of penalty proceedings was not clear. Based on this the taxpayer did not respond to the penalty notice and tax officer levied a penalty of 100 percent of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the taxpayer challenged the validity of the penalty order before the Commissioner

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act but the reason for initiation of penalty proceedings was not clear. Based on this the taxpayer did not respond to the penalty notice and tax officer levied a penalty of 100 percent of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the taxpayer challenged the validity of the penalty order before the Commissioner

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act but the reason for initiation of penalty proceedings was not clear. Based on this the taxpayer did not respond to the penalty notice and tax officer levied a penalty of 100 percent of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the taxpayer challenged the validity of the penalty order before the Commissioner

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

ITA 857/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Madan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Janardan Das, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions u/s 271(l)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 693/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 755/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 765/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 757/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 754/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 758/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case