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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

271(1)(c) the penalty was proposed to be levied. 8.2 Before proceeding further, the question as to whether this kind of ground can be allowed to be raised under the aeges of simple ground that there was an error in the order of the AO? To my mind, if this kind of interpretation is subscription to, then there

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14,NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

153C of the Act had declared capital gain of Rs 20,84,508/-on sale of property for a total consideration of Rs 71,50,000/-. The assessee while calculating capital gain, had taken an amount of Rs. 48,84,524/- as construction/renovation expenses during different years for calculating cost of acquisition. As the assessee had not been able

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 to 618/Del/2022 been levied in June 2018. For the aforesaid proposition reliance was placed on the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs. Addl.CIT [ITA No. 405/JP/2019] wherein the Tribunal examined the aforesaid issue

M/S SOLITAIRIAN BUILDINFRA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act for concealment of income. Since\nthe matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court,\nwe quashed the penalty order levied by AO. The ground no 4 raised\nby the assessee is allowed.\n7.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\nOrder pronounced in the open

BABOO RAM HARI CHAND,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2015-16]

271(1)(b) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.60,000/- on the ground of non-compliance of notices issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. 4. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the proceedings for the assessment year 2015-16 initiated in the case of the assessee vide notice u/s 153C

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground in this

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground in this

MAHALUXMI REALTECH PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 68 69 of the Act and therefore, an addition of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- is made to the income of assessee company accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. are initiated on this issue for furnishing inaccurate particular of income and for concealment of income.” 6. Subsequently the notices U/s 271(1

MAHALUXMI REALTECH PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 68 69 of the Act and therefore, an addition of Rs. 1,24,00,000/- is made to the income of assessee company accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. are initiated on this issue for furnishing inaccurate particular of income and for concealment of income.” 6. Subsequently the notices U/s 271(1