ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

6 | P a g e ITA No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income cannot be levied on account of additions/disallowance, which involve questions of law. It is well established that penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is not leviable in case of 'difference in opinion'. It is humbly submitted that where two views are possible

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

6 | P a g e ITA No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income cannot be levied on account of additions/disallowance, which involve questions of law. It is well established that penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is not leviable in case of 'difference in opinion'. It is humbly submitted that where two views are possible

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

271(1)(c) the penalty was proposed to be levied. 8.2 Before proceeding further, the question as to whether this kind of ground can be allowed to be raised under the aeges of simple ground that there was an error in the order of the AO? To my mind, if this kind of interpretation is subscription to, then there

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

penalty or fine has been incurred by the assessee. At point 37, no payment by way of commission or brokerage has been made during the year. At point 38, details regarding the expenses on which TDS is required to be deducted has been provided. At point 39, details regarding foreign transactions have been provided. At point 40, it is submitted

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the Id. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case\nof receipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

133(6) or did not file their\nITR, the same cannot be ground for drawing adverse inference in the\ncase of the assessee. It is humbly submitted that it is not a case of\nreceipt of any loan/ share capital/ gift or any other form of cash credit.\nIt is a case, where the assessee has incurred expenses during

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

133 ITR 7 (Del) has held that the CIT cannot pass an order under s. 263 of the Act pertaining to imposition of penalty where the assessment order under s. 143(3) is silent in that respect. The relevant observations recorded are: “It is well established that proceedings for the levy of a penalty whether under s. 271

MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

6 Initiation of penalty proceedings That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act, being against the provisions of the Act. 7. General 7.1 Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 41(1). The AO had issued summons u/s 133(6) which remained uncomplied with by many parties. As has been held in many judicial precedents by the Hon’ble Courts/Tribunals, the burden of onus lies on the appellant and not on the A O. It was the duty of the appellant to produce necessary documents and evidences which could