MAYASHEEL CONSTRUCTION,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. The Ld. DR further submitted that during the penalty proceedings and respective appellate proceedings assessee has not raised the issue of striking off of the limb of penalty in the notice. During the penalty proceedings and appellate proceedings, the assessee never raised objection that non mentioning

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary to the settled position in law, as indicated above and the two decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal (supra) Housing

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary to the settled position in law, as indicated above and the two decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal (supra) Housing

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary to the settled position in law, as indicated above and the two decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal (supra) Housing

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary to the settled position in law, as indicated above and the two decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal (supra) Housing

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

u/s 271 (1 )(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.Com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC): 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

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

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

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of addition on account of surrender of additional income. The penalty for concealment so confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) on this count is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment framed under section

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

u/s 271(1)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said HC decision had not considered the provisions of sec.292B, also notes that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. MEHAR ANAND, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

150/- as an income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee. He, therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.355/-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " K. P. Madhusudan Vs CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) " Tirupati Kumar Khemka & Another

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARVEER SINGH KALRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

150/- as an income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee. He, therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.355/-. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " K. P. Madhusudan Vs CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC) " Tirupati Kumar Khemka & Another

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? DCIT Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowances made by the AO on account of claim of loss on account of Mark to Market

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI ALOK GARG, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpg7151K Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Aligarh.

150 % at Rs 14,20,911/- is high pitched and should be deleted. 14. All grounds of appeal and written submissions are without prejudice to each other. Prayer : In view of the above facts and judicial pronouncements by Supreme Court and jurisdictional Allahabad High Court, it is prayed that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed

M/S. TELESONIC SYSTEMS (I) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary

150/- as 10% of the expenditure claimed. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act due to the reason that the assessee failed to file any documents or evidence before the Assessing Officer. The various notices issued were also not complied. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1