ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

143 (3) passed and penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act issued. 2. 27.03.2015 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed levying penalty of Rs. 20,33,93,765/- 3. 23.02.2017 The above penalty order dt. 27.03.2015 deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) -7. New Delhi. 4. 13.05.2021 Application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

143 (3) passed and penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act issued. 2. 27.03.2015 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed levying penalty of Rs. 20,33,93,765/- 3. 23.02.2017 The above penalty order dt. 27.03.2015 deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) -7. New Delhi. 4. 13.05.2021 Application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of the I.T. Act as above.Issue necessary forms. Initiate penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of the I.T. Act as above.Issue necessary forms. Initiate penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) of the I.T. Act as above.Issue necessary forms. Initiate penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

3. Penalty/ Fines paid 1,64,000 Expenses on account of default in 4. 6,95,65,300 deduction 5. Donation paid 2,50,00,000 6. Share issue expenses 2,500 Total Additions 16,79,34,800 [[1.4 Along with the assessment order dated 21 March 2014, penalty notice dated 22 March 2014 was issued under Section 271

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act were\ninitiated by the Assessing Officer in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act\ndated 28.12.2007 and 30.12.2008 for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07,\nrespectively.\n2\nITA Nos.9694 & 9695/Del/2019\nSince, these appeals were heard together, they are being\nconsolidated and disposed of together for the sake of convenience by\nthis

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2007 and 30.12.2008 for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. 2. Since, these appeals were heard together, they are being consolidated and disposed of together for the sake of convenience by this common order. 3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing concealment of income/inaccurate particulars of income. 2.5. The A.O. accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.27,28,32,150/-. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings

UNITECH HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

143(3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing Officer initiated penalty, issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271

UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

143(3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing Officer initiated penalty, issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271

UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

143(3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing Officer initiated penalty, issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, is initiated separately.”\n\n(2.3) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in which the following grounds\nof appeal were raised:\n\n\"1. The Learned DCIT erred in law by reopening assessment u/s 147 of\nIncome Tax on the basis of change in opinion.\n2. The Learned

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

143(3) of the Act xii) 24.03.2022 Reply filed by the appellant company in response to notice u/s 274 read with section 270A of the Act (99-101) xiii) 23.02.2023 Notice issued u/s 274 read with section 270A of the Act(102) xiv) 30.03.2023 Reply filed by the appellant company in response to notice u/s 274 read with section 270A

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

penalty under section 271(1)(c ) from 287.5% to 100% imposed . Original addition was made in the assessment u/s 143(3

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs. RAYTHEON COMPANY, UNITED STATES

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue for the

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1383 To 1392/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Yeasrs:2004-05 To 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12 & 2014-15 To 2016-17 बनाम Dcit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. 870, Winter Steet, Int. Taxation, Waltham-Ma 02451, Room No. 416, Foreign Usa, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Usa. Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.441/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Raytheon Company Circle 3(1)(1), Vs. C/O Srbc & Associates Int. Taxation, Llp, Golf View Corporate Room No. 416, Tower-B, Sector-42, 4Th Floor, E-2 Block, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Haryana. J.L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcr3511P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

143(3) r.w.s. 144C have been deleted by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). However, the assessee to by peace approached the authorities for settling the issues under MAP and also subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Vs. CIT 432 ITR 471 held that supply of software and document is not royalty