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

2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. The lAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs.10,000 for assessment years

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

2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. The lAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs.10,000 for assessment years

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

2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 10,000 for assessment years

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

2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 10,000 for assessment years

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

2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 10,000 for assessment years

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

2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 10,000 for assessment years

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

2). Assessee had no knowledge of exact charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. IAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 10,000 for assessment years

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

2). Assessee had no knowledge 9 of exact Charge against him. Not only word 'or' had been used between two groups of charges but there was use of word 'deliberately' also. lAC imposed penalty of Rs. 13,000 for assessment year 1967-68 and ITO imposed penalty of Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 10,000 for assessment years

M/S. C.S. DATAMATION RESEARCH SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

2 evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty so levied by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referred to a copy of notice issued u/s

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied unlawfully u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act where there the addition made in quantum proceedings is itself based on estimates and without any clarity as to actual existence of stated income which is nowhere established

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied unlawfully u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act where there the addition made in quantum proceedings is itself based on estimates and without any clarity as to actual existence of stated income which is nowhere established

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

271 (1) (c) of the Act for the above\nadditions were successfully represented by the same previous counsel\nbefore CIT (Appeals). Departmental appeals against the deletion of penalties\nwere dismissed.\n7. Appeals against additions u/s 2 (22) (e) for the three years 2005-06 to 2007-\n08 were also being represented till last year by the same previous counsel.It\nwas

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue has no force and the same is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh

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

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

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

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.

2,22,716/- (Copy enclosed) Tax Difference (100%) 9,12,738/- 150% of Tax difference 13,69,107/- Without prejudice, Ld. A.O. has erred in calculation of penalty @150% at Rs 14,20,911/- in place of Rs 13,69,107/- as above. Arithmetical error may be deleted. 13. Without prejudice, penalty of 150