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

144 read with section 145 is an assessment in which the Assessing Officer can estimate the assessee's income after rejecting the books of account and for rejecting the books of account, it is the revenue's onus to prove that either the books of account maintained by the assessee are not correct and complete or the method of accounting

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

271 (1)(c) can be imposed to assess the capital gain as per the provisions of section 50C/2(14) of the IT Act and CIT(A) is in error to confirm the same. . 2. That the A.O is in error in imposing penalty of Rs. 2,84,382/- is bad in law and CIT(A) is in error to confirm

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Authorized

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)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. No such satisfaction seems to be recorded or an order directing issuance of notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act is mentioned in any of the proceedings of the alleged default of non-appearance on any particular day for which notices were served. 8. At the same time, the aforesaid

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

144(C)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking into account that the assessee company did not raise the issue regarding the specification of limb under which penalty was initiated after the initiation of penalty on 26.05.2014. Even the assessee also responded and compliance to again issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) dated

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

144(C)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking into account that the assessee company did not raise the issue regarding the specification of limb under which penalty was initiated after the initiation of penalty on 26.05.2014. Even the assessee also responded and compliance to again issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) dated

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

144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier; (c) where an action has been taken under section 132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section

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

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect of A.Ys

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

144 of the Act. Hence the orders so passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for the A.Y 2012-13 and under section 153A read with section 143(3) for the A.Ys 2011-12 and 2009-10 suffer from an incurable jurisdictional defect and cannot be upheld. On this count alone the assessment orders in respect of A.Ys

GAURAV GAUBA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14 , NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2008-09

144 read with Section 153A and assessed the assessee’s income at Rs. 32,59,500/- by making addition of Rs. 4 31,65,000/- to the returned income of Rs. 94,500/-. In appeal, the learned CIT(Appeals) reduced the addition to Rs. 4,50,000/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

ARTMICA LAMINATES P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned penalty order is set aside

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaartmica Laminates Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C/O. M.K. Bhatt & Co, 302, Ward-3(2), Triveni Complex, E-10-12, New Delhi Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aqcpk7351E

144 of the Act was passed making an ad hoc addition of Rs. 2 crores. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), the same was reduced to Rs. 46,46,217/- while deleting Rs. 1,53,53,783/-. Thereafter, vide penalty order dated 28.02.2018, the ld AO had imposed penalty of Rs. 14,35,681/-@100% of the tax sought

DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars is not imposable and directed deletion thereof allowing the appeal of the assessee. The relevant observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are extracted hereinbelow: “6.3 In its submission, the appellant has vehemently argued on each addition and contended that appellant is covered under the tonnage

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 14,, NEW DELHI vs. BHUDEVA ESTATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1403/Del/2020, A.Y. 2008-09 Acit, Vs. M/S. Bhudeva Estate Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-14, Flat No. 4, R.R.Apartments, 3-4 New Delhi Mangla Puri, Mehrauli, New Delhi - 110030 (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 r.w.s. 153A was passed on 25.02.2013 and the Ld. AO had made additions on three counts for which he also observed “penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars”. Thereafter after issuing notice and hearing the assessee the impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

ARUN DUGGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act wherein no specific limb has been mentioned, apart from the same, the learned Counsel submitted that, in the assessment order, the AO mentioned that ‘a separate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income’ but the order of the penalty has been passed for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars

VIJAY POWER GENERATORS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-17 (3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 05.03.2004 at an income of Rs.1,78,99,840/-. Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by way of issuance of the notice u/s 271

NEETU GUPTA,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GURGAON

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Sudhir Pareek

144 r/w section 147 of the Act vide order dated 10.12.2018, at the income of Rs. 10,65,000/-. In the course of proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 20.11.2018 and in the event of non-responding the same, thereafter, notice U/s 274 r/w section 271 of the Act for levy of penalty

RAM NARAYAN CONTRACTOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

144 of the Act, wherein the A.O. in so far as initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is concerned has mentioned as under:- “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars on income on this issue.” 6. Further a notice u/s 274 read with Section

BITS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 3(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9803/Del/2019 (A.Y 2007-08)

144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 79,85,945/-. The addition has been made at Rs. 54,02,751/- as unexplained credits introduced in garb of share application money, similarly, addition u/s 68 of the Act was also made in respect of unexplained Sundry Creditors of Rs. 14,05,580/- and further depreciation