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

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

u/s 271(l)(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

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

section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. That even otherwise, penalty levied and sustained at 150% of tax sought to be evaded is excessive and without any basis and therefore, untenable. 7. That even otherwise, penalty levied and sustained at 150% of tax sought to be evaded is excessive and without any basis and therefore, untenable.” 2. Facts giving rise

SUBHASH GUJAR,JHAJJAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are being initiated separately. Subject to above remarks, income of the assessee is computed as under:- Income as per return filed Rs. 92,020/- Addition as discussed above Rs. 31,70,000/- Taxable income Rs. 32,62,020/-.” 7. The grievance of the assessee

SMS CONCAST AG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

2. High Court of Madras Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT 3. High Court of Madras Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) 4. Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India Vikramajit Sen and Rajiv Shakdher JJ 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxmann.com 324 (SC) 6. Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2024] 158 taxmnan.com

AMAR NATH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

150/- had filed its return of income on dated 29.03.2016, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the Assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Assessee had shown to have sold a land

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

Penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act,1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nwithin the meaning of explanation1 to the sub-section (1) of the section\n271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated.\nAddition: Rs. 44,05,518/-\nThe issue on merits at the heart of the matter is allowability

GAZAL CATERERS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued and fixing the case for 14.11.2011” 11. From the examination of assessment record, it is seen that notices u/s 143(2) was issued twice before the prescribed time period, once on 20.08.2010 and second on 23.09.2010 to the assessee at the address given

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

150/- which inter alia included protective addition in respect of unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs. 1,94,45,100/- and unexplained other deposits of Rs. 14,61,64,641/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an application under 264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

150/- which inter alia included protective addition in respect of unexplained share capital and share premium of Rs. 1,94,45,100/- and unexplained other deposits of Rs. 14,61,64,641/-. 5. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed an application under 264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi

ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN vs. SANJAY GHAI, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order more so when the charge on penalty notice dated 27.03.2003 was not specified as to whether penalty is being initiated for "concealment of particulars

ITO, WARD-2(3), DEHRADUN vs. SANJAY GHAI, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order more so when the charge on penalty notice dated 27.03.2003 was not specified as to whether penalty is being initiated for "concealment of particulars

GAJENDER SINGH JADON,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-57(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2006-07 Gajender Singh Jadon, Vs. Acit, Circle-57(5), C-2/785, Street No. 14, New Delhi. 2 Pushta Road, Sonia Vihar, New Delhi. Pan Ahipj6180B (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1X0 of Rs.4,36,060/- is arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 8. That the levy of penalty is illegal, unjust and not in accordance with law as the mandatory requirements of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act have not been met in the instant case. 9. That in the absence of satisfaction in the assessment order

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 2. Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues, they have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 2. Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues, they have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 2. Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues, they have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 2. Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues, they have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 2. Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues, they have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience

RAJESH MANGLA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)/271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The appeals pertain to Assessment Years 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 2. Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues, they have been clubbed together and disposed of in a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience