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)

153B and 153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 1538 and 153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First, we cull-out the facts from the quantum

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

u/s 153D of the Act.\nIn view of the above discussion, we hold that the order passed\nu/s 153A r.w.s.43(3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly.\nThe ground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\".\n18. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial\nquestion of law arises for our consideration.\n19. Having regard

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

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

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

271 of the Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 18. In the case on hand, though it is claimed by the Revenue that order dated December 28, 2018 was a draft assessment order, we may record that the ACIT has directed issuance of demand notice and also initiated penalty proceedings. As in Vijay Television Case, the said order along with demand notice

SALONI NARANG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been challenged. Since both the appeals were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Vide letter dated 06.01.2023, the assessee has prayed for admission of additional grounds: “1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

SALONI NARANG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been challenged. Since both the appeals were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Vide letter dated 06.01.2023, the assessee has prayed for admission of additional grounds: “1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand\nand accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.\n\n34. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\n\nOrder pronounced in the open Court on 18.06.2025.\n\nSd/-\n(YOGESH KUMAR US)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\n*Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*\n\nCopy forwarded

SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand\nand accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.\n\n34. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\n\nOrder pronounced in the open Court on 18.06.2025.\n\nSd/-\n(YOGESH KUMAR US)\nJUDICIAL MEMBER\n*Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*\nCopy forwarded to:\n1. Appellant

RAJINDER KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, order of ITAT quantum appeal is not reported or available it also set out the material facts and decision arrived in quantum proceedings for which penalty was levied, 3.26. Article 21 of the DTAA between India-Nepal is on the lines of OECD Model Convention. Article 21 of the Indo-Nepal DTAA reads