K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s 148

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s 148

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

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, the Bench pronounced that since the assessee had not suppressed any material fact from the notice of the A.O. in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income is not appropriate. Copy of judgment of Bhavya Anant

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit-3, Coimbatore, deleted the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act in respect of LTCG claimed exempt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Penalty proceedings us 271(1(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealment of income.” 3.2. Against the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) unit-3, Coimbatore, deleted the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act in respect of LTCG claimed exempt

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

u/s 148, then the amount of penalty ought to have been calculated, as per the formula provided in clause (c) of Explanation 4 to Section 271

NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Thus, in the penalty order the AO has not specifically mentioned the offences. However, from the assessment order it is evident that penalty proceedings have been initiated by the AO for concealment of income 4.8 Further, the facts of the case as indicated above and the findings given by Hon'ble High

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

Section 148 of the Act, which was issued to him. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is having a non-compliant and deliberate attitude towards the revenue. Therefore, the net profit of the assessee ITA No.- 5654/Del/2024 Krishna Enterprises is taken as 8% of his total sales/turnover of Rs.4,63,30,254/-, which comes

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 ITR 138/(20051 142 Taxman 555 (Mad.), India Cine Agencies v. Dy. CIT(2005] 275 ITR 430 (Mad.), Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT {2005] 148 Taxman 145 (All.) CIT VS. S.M Construction, Bombay High Court, CIT VS. Reliance Petroproduct Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. (b) Penalty proceedings are penal in nature. Elementary principles of criminal law will apply

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 ITR 138/(20051 142 Taxman 555 (Mad.), India Cine Agencies v. Dy. CIT(2005] 275 ITR 430 (Mad.), Bharat Rice Mill v. CIT {2005] 148 Taxman 145 (All.) CIT VS. S.M Construction, Bombay High Court, CIT VS. Reliance Petroproduct Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158. (b) Penalty proceedings are penal in nature. Elementary principles of criminal law will apply

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

penalty u/s 271 and the assesse has submitted his reply on 02-04-2021. (Refer Para- 2 of the Assessment order under Section 271(1)(c) Page No.........) 4) The Income Tax Officer did not appreciate the contention of the assessee and her adherence to full fill the compliance towards Income Tax department after receiving the Notice under section. 148

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

148 filed her return of income declaring the same income which was originally returned and during the course of assessment proceedings had surrendered the income of Rs.2,47,395/-, the Assessing Officer in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs.84,090/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal

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)

148 issued 10/04/2018 Notice u/s 142(1) issued and fixed for 19/04/2018 16/05/2018 Notice u/s 142(1) issued and fixed for 30/05/2018 05/06/2018 Notice u/s 142(1) issued and fixed for 20/06/2018 03/08/2018 Notice u/s 142(1) issued and fixed for 16/08/2018 18/09/2018 Notice u/s 142(1) issued and fixed for 28/09/2018 29/10/2018 Notice u/s 142(1) issued and fixed

NIRIPRAJ SINGH SOHAL,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1) LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 148. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea that tax sought to be evaded should exclude TDS and self-assessment tax paid, as per Explanation 4(c) to section 271.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "148", "250", "139" ], "issues": "Whether penalty