KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

271(1) (c) stipulates when penalty under the said Section should be imposed and reads as under:- 2012:DHC:1786-DB ITA 1152/2011 Page 3 of 16 “Explanation 1 : Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, - (A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

154. 7. As regards the said unexplained expenses of Rs.50000/=, we would like to submit that the details were duly furnished with at the time of assessment proceedings .So this cannot be treated as concealment of income. 8. Regarding advance of Rs. 512200/= from M/s Broadways Machines (P) Ltd we are to submit that advance was taken for supply

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). 9.35 The arguments put forward by the appellant have been considered carefully. It is noted that no explanation regarding levy of penalty in respect of this addition was put up before the AO. There is no doubt that the expenditures are claimed to have been made by way of cash payments. The appellant has accepted that

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee derives income from real estate business. On 11.12.2008, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee. Notice under Section 153A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

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

154. 5th 31.05.2013 ITAT decided the quantum appeal. 6th 30.03.2013 The penalty order was passed by assessing officer. 7. It was submitted by Ld. Sr. Counsel that in the present case in the light of provisions of Section 275(1)(a) of the Act, penalty order could not have been passed after 31.03.2010 i.e. the financial year in which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJEDEV SINGH & CO.

The appeal stands dismissed

penalty. We think it appropriate to reproduce a passage from the order passed by the CIT(A) ? ?Every income which has escaped assessment cannot attract provisions of Section 271(1)(c). In fact the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 154

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 154 of the Act with following direction: - “1. Re-compute capital gain in accordance with provision of the Act., 2. Check that income has been properly disclosed with reference to amounts shown in Form 26 QB in ITR, and 3. To initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271

SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.6013/िद"ी/2017 (िन.व. 2011-12) M/S. Splendor Landbase Ltd., Unit No. 501-511, 5Th Floor, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi 110025 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaeca-3986-E बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-3, New Delhi

154 of the Act. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of above additions/disallowance. Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 31.03.2015 was served on the assessee. The said notice is in a pre-printed performa without striking of irrelevant clauses. Non striking of irrelevant clauses makes the notice ambiguous

TRIUNE ENERGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Ani Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmatriune Energy Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-1/H-4, Mohan Circle-25(2), Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi Mathura Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1045E

section 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act is given here-in-below:-(Amount in Rs.) Concealed income where penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) is initiated 62,89,890/- Tax sought to be evaded 20,40,755/- Minimum penalty imposable @ 100% 20,40,755/- Maximum penalty imposable @300% 61,22,265/- Penalty imposed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUBHASH TYAGI PROP. M/S KRISHANA CONSTRUCTION, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

154 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) dated 14.06.2019 for the purposes of initiating and continuing proceedings under Section 271AAB of the Act 4 ITA No.1342, 1044/Del/2021 & CO No.59/Del/2023 instead of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB

SHRI SUBHASH TYAGI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

154 r.w. Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) dated 14.06.2019 for the purposes of initiating and continuing proceedings under Section 271AAB of the Act 4 ITA No.1342, 1044/Del/2021 & CO No.59/Del/2023 instead of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

154 of the Act by increasing the penalty and imposed the penalty at 30% of the undisclosed income at Rs.1,64,03,339/-. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A)-30, New Delhi and filed detailed submissions which are reproduced at pages 5 to 18 of the ld. CIT (A)’s order. After considering the detailed

ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED,BARAKHAMBA ROAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CR BUILDING

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

154 of the Act. (ii) Addition on account of disallowance of deduction of Rs 2,12,84,740/- u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. The penalty proceedings were separately initiated for tax sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied at Rs. 76,35,900/- vide order dated 29.11.2017 on the issue of disallowance of deduction

ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

154 of the Act. (ii) Addition on account of disallowance of deduction of Rs 2,12,84,740/- u/s 80IB of the Act. 5. The penalty proceedings were separately initiated for tax sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied at Rs. 76,35,900/- vide order dated 29.11.2017 on the issue of disallowance of deduction

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 9. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return Rs. Rs.11,772/- Add:- (i) Unexplaiend share Rs. 14,50,66,141/- capital (ii) Unexplained bank Rs.16,45,11,241/- deposit as discussed above Total

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 9. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return Rs. Rs.11,772/- Add:- (i) Unexplaiend share Rs. 14,50,66,141/- capital (ii) Unexplained bank Rs.16,45,11,241/- deposit as discussed above Total

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs