DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

139(1) and therefore, falls under the ambit of sub-clause (b) of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is of the view that mere acceptance of the disclosure of the assessee did not automatically give immunity from penalty proceeding since element of concealment exist in the disclosure made by the assessee because

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

139(1) and therefore, falls under the ambit of sub-clause (b) of Explanation 5A of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is of the view that mere acceptance of the disclosure of the assessee did not automatically give immunity from penalty proceeding since element of concealment exist in the disclosure made by the assessee because

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty u/s 271AAA applies only to 'specified previous year', which has been defined in Explanation (b) appended to section 271 AAA. Thus, the year in which search is conducted, and the year which had ended before the date of search but the date for filing the return of income u/s 139

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty u/s 271AAA applies only to 'specified previous year', which has been defined in Explanation (b) appended to section 271 AAA. Thus, the year in which search is conducted, and the year which had ended before the date of search but the date for filing the return of income u/s 139

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty u/s 271AAA applies only to 'specified previous year', which has been defined in Explanation (b) appended to section 271 AAA. Thus, the year in which search is conducted, and the year which had ended before the date of search but the date for filing the return of income u/s 139

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty u/s 271AAA applies only to 'specified previous year', which has been defined in Explanation (b) appended to section 271 AAA. Thus, the year in which search is conducted, and the year which had ended before the date of search but the date for filing the return of income u/s 139

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty u/s 271AAA applies only to 'specified previous year', which has been defined in Explanation (b) appended to section 271 AAA. Thus, the year in which search is conducted, and the year which had ended before the date of search but the date for filing the return of income u/s 139

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai & Assessment Year:- 2006-07 Sh. Shyam Sunder Jindal Vs. Acit, Central Circle 30 12 A, Green Avenue New Delhi Sector D, Pocket 3 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aagpj 0184 N

u/s 142(1) of the Act. " A.Y. 2006-07 Sh. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi (Pages 1 to 3 of the Paper book) 1.2.5 On perusal of the impugned order, it is quite evident that the learned assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the 1ncome tax Act, 1961 only on the basis that the appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

271(l)(c) of Income Tax Act were also initiated for asstt. year 2005-06 by the Ld. AO. For asstt. year 2006-07 also, the assessee revised the original return and filed the revised return u/s 139(5) o f I. T. Act on 31.10.2007 withdrawing the deduction claimed u/s 801B amounting to Rs. 45,16,523/-. Though

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

ASHHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

AYUSH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

ASHISH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, within the meaning of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income tax Act, 1961. For the reasons discussed above, penalty