SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

142(1). 8. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty order of the Assessing Officer levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b)and then the assessee filed appeal before ITAT. 9. The complete background of the issue is as under: 9.1 In April/May, 2011 Government of India received information from a Foreign Government

TISHA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6862 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

u/s 142(1) of the Act however, the assessing officer has to draw ‘satisfaction’ for the purpose of Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, that there is a failure requiring initiation of penalty

ALOK GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 139(2)/148/142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated……… or have without reasonable cause failed to furnish within the time allowed and in the manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income

ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings which is extracted as under for ready perusal:- 6 ITA No.2789/Del./2017 “NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PAN AACCI7147R Dated: 20.03.2015 To M/s. Ishita Technologies Ltd., Western Side Basement & Ground Floor, 4378/4, Gali-4B, Ansari

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings, available at pages 11 to 15 of the paper book for AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13, and notice issued for AY 2008-09 is extracted for ready perusal as under :- 7 ITA No.5105/Del./2017 ITA No.5106/Del./2017 ITA No.5107/Del./2017 ITA No.5108/Del./2017

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings, available at pages 11 to 15 of the paper book for AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13, and notice issued for AY 2008-09 is extracted for ready perusal as under :- 7 ITA No.5105/Del./2017 ITA No.5106/Del./2017 ITA No.5107/Del./2017 ITA No.5108/Del./2017

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings, available at pages 11 to 15 of the paper book for AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13, and notice issued for AY 2008-09 is extracted for ready perusal as under :- 7 ITA No.5105/Del./2017 ITA No.5106/Del./2017 ITA No.5107/Del./2017 ITA No.5108/Del./2017

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings, available at pages 11 to 15 of the paper book for AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13, and notice issued for AY 2008-09 is extracted for ready perusal as under :- 7 ITA No.5105/Del./2017 ITA No.5106/Del./2017 ITA No.5107/Del./2017 ITA No.5108/Del./2017

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings, available at pages 11 to 15 of the paper book for AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13, and notice issued for AY 2008-09 is extracted for ready perusal as under :- 7 ITA No.5105/Del./2017 ITA No.5106/Del./2017 ITA No.5107/Del./2017 ITA No.5108/Del./2017

KISSAN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

Penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PAN AAACK5966G Dated: 28.12.2012 To M/s. Kissan Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, South of G.T. Road, BSR Road, Indl. Area, Ghaziabad. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2010-11 it appears

SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

section 271(1)(b) was imposed upon him. During search and seizure operation various incriminating material and papers was found whose verification was only possible when assessee could have co-operated, but assessee tried to delay assessment proceedings in order to hinder proper investigation. However, notices and reminders were issued time to time and various third party verification was done

SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

section 271(1)(b) was imposed upon him. During search and seizure operation various incriminating material and papers was found whose verification was only possible when assessee could have co-operated, but assessee tried to delay assessment proceedings in order to hinder proper investigation. However, notices and reminders were issued time to time and various third party verification was done