SH. ASHWANI JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08 Ashwani Jain, A-92, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Gujrawalan Town, Part-1, Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aahpj3505G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, Advocates Respondent By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi, Dated 31.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,23,046/- & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio. Ii. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Quashing The Penalty Order Framed By Ld. Ao Is Beyond Jurisdiction & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio & The Impugned Penalty Order Has Been Framed Without Considering The Submissions/Evidences Of The Assessee & Without Providing Any Adverse

section 69C. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income/concealed particulars of income, penalty proceedings U/S 271 (J)(c) are initiated separately. " 8.4 Thus it is seen that as against the disclosed value of only Rs.l,08,29,8591-, the value was determined by the Valuation Officer at Rs. l,61,01,272/-, as per which the excess investment

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. ATEEQ AHMED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 144A issued by JCIT, Range-59 and he found himself cornered. In view of the above, the offer made by the assessee cannot be termed as voluntary and hence, does not absolve the assessee of section 271(l)(c) penalty

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. ATEEQ AHMED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 144A issued by JCIT, Range-59 and he found himself cornered. In view of the above, the offer made by the assessee cannot be termed as voluntary and hence, does not absolve the assessee of section 271(l)(c) penalty

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

MR. MOHIT GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT, FARIDABAD

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act in exercise of revision power under Section 263 of the Act. " 3.1 Ld. A.R. further submitted that Ld A.O. took a view on the basis of revised return and made additions thereon. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CITVs Gabriel India

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. DEEPA TALWAR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for payment of penalty and not for the initiation of proceedings. 3.5 The assessee has to positively prove that there is a case of non- application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for payment of penalty and not for the initiation of proceedings. 3.5 The assessee has to positively prove that there is a case of non- application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would

SMT. PADMA DEVI MALIK,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2482/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Padma Devi Malik, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-4C, 123, Carlton Estate, Ward-Ii(1), Phase-V, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakpm7458G Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.02.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Gurgaon.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. From the above ground, it is gathered that the only grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition of Rs.17,65,000/-. 4. Facts of the case related to this issue in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 25.07.2011 declaring an income

YASMIN KAPOOR,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 19, DELHI, DELHI

271(1)(c) was only a procedural\nerror and it was not fatal to the order of penalty under section\n271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Court held that in the said case, the\nproceedings were validly initiated and the proceedings under section\n271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for\npayment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Accordingly, the respective grounds raised by the respective\nassessees are hereby allowed

271(1)(c) was only a procedural\nerror and it was not fatal to the order of penalty under section\n271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Court held that in the said case, the\nproceedings were validly initiated and the proceedings under section\n271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for\npayment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

144A are to be exercised by the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner. The powers u/s 251 are specific to the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, the powers u/s 263 and 264 are to be exercised by the PCIT/CIT. Further, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961, Central Board

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 1849/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd., Central Circle-15, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura New Delhi-110055 Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F Co No. 271/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Co No. 284/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Soul Space Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, E-23/B-1, Extn. Mcie, Mathura Central Circle-15, Road, New Delhi-110044 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7736F

144A are to be exercised by the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner. The powers u/s 251 are specific to the Commissioner (Appeals). Similarly, the powers u/s 263 and 264 are to be exercised by the PCIT/CIT. Further, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 119 of Income-tax Act, 1961, Central Board

SHIVALIK EDUCATIONAL & PLACEMENT SERVICES PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has also been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 10. Subject to the discussion in forgone paras, total income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is computed as under:- Returned income Rs.41,80,240/- Add: Rs. 4,96,00,000/- Disallowance

RAJESH KUMAR,HISAR vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner

CIT vs. DABON INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.? . . . 3. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the said addition after calling for remand report and after examining the full details furnished by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) noticed that the assessee is in the business of manufacturing and marketing cheese as well as other dairy products

MR. ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI,,NOIDA vs. ITO,, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

144A have been sought from JOT. The JCIT,Range-2,Noida vide order dated 23.2.2015 held that dispute whether the said acquired land belonged to Individual or HUF is totally irrelevant in the context of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In this connection, decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Controller of Estate Duty