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

4. Smt. Kiran Devi Vs ACIT (2009) 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) where Hon’ble ITAT Delhi held that where certain income was c sdosed in return filed in response to notice under section 153C following searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271

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

4. Smt. Kiran Devi Vs ACIT (2009) 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi) where Hon’ble ITAT Delhi held that where certain income was c sdosed in return filed in response to notice under section 153C following searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271

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

139(1) had not expired and the appellant had not furnished the return for previous year 10-11, the previous year 10-11 and previous year 11-12 relevant to AY 11-12 and AY 12-13 respectively come within the meaning of ‘specified previous year’, as defined by Explanation (b) appended to section 271AAA. 11.12 Penalty u/s 271AAA

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

139(1) had not expired and the appellant had not furnished the return for previous year 10-11, the previous year 10-11 and previous year 11-12 relevant to AY 11-12 and AY 12-13 respectively come within the meaning of ‘specified previous year’, as defined by Explanation (b) appended to section 271AAA. 11.12 Penalty u/s 271AAA

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

139(1) had not expired and the appellant had not furnished the return for previous year 10-11, the previous year 10-11 and previous year 11-12 relevant to AY 11-12 and AY 12-13 respectively come within the meaning of ‘specified previous year’, as defined by Explanation (b) appended to section 271AAA. 11.12 Penalty u/s 271AAA

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

139(1) had not expired and the appellant had not furnished the return for previous year 10-11, the previous year 10-11 and previous year 11-12 relevant to AY 11-12 and AY 12-13 respectively come within the meaning of ‘specified previous year’, as defined by Explanation (b) appended to section 271AAA. 11.12 Penalty u/s 271AAA

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

139(1) had not expired and the appellant had not furnished the return for previous year 10-11, the previous year 10-11 and previous year 11-12 relevant to AY 11-12 and AY 12-13 respectively come within the meaning of ‘specified previous year’, as defined by Explanation (b) appended to section 271AAA. 11.12 Penalty u/s 271AAA

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

139 (5) to I. T. Act, the Ld. AO held that the revised return was not filed suo moto but was filed on the instance o f department i.e. when the issue relating to allowability of deduction u/s 801 A o f Act was confronted with the assesee in the course of assessment proceedings for asstt. year 2005-06 vide

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271

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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 proceedings U/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. The appellant has taken a plea that the penalty notice u/s 274 read with 271