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

271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case before the HKHC, since such reasons were neither mentioned in the penalty initiation notice, nor were clearly discernible from the assessment order where the taxable income was enhanced, the penalty levy was deleted for want of application of mind by the tax officer. Revenue's appeal against this HKHC judgment before

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case before the HKHC, since such reasons were neither mentioned in the penalty initiation notice, nor were clearly discernible from the assessment order where the taxable income was enhanced, the penalty levy was deleted for want of application of mind by the tax officer. Revenue's appeal against this HKHC judgment before

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271 (l)(c), since it is neither concealment nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. 4. It is contented that merely because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance petro products

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271 (l)(c), since it is neither concealment nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. 4. It is contented that merely because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance petro products

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271 (l)(c), since it is neither concealment nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. 4. It is contented that merely because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271 (l)(c) held in the case of CIT vs. Reliance petro products

MS. TRIPTA KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Tripta Kaur, Acit, Central Circle- 14, A-29, Friends Colony-East, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

section 271AAA penalty can be levied on the undisclosed income detected during the course of search whereas penalty can be levied u/s 271(1)(c) if any other addition has been made. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) which has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is justified

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: i. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the penalty made by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of additions under

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

154 as under:- Assessment Year Amount of Penalty 2006-07 `2,99,016/- 2007-08 `94,49,969/- 2008-09 `35,172/- 9. At the time of hearing before us, it is contended by the learned counsel that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is 5 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others barred by limitation. Since the facts

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

154 as under:- Assessment Year Amount of Penalty 2006-07 `2,99,016/- 2007-08 `94,49,969/- 2008-09 `35,172/- 9. At the time of hearing before us, it is contended by the learned counsel that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is 5 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others barred by limitation. Since the facts

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

154 as under:- Assessment Year Amount of Penalty 2006-07 `2,99,016/- 2007-08 `94,49,969/- 2008-09 `35,172/- 9. At the time of hearing before us, it is contended by the learned counsel that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is 5 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others barred by limitation. Since the facts

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

154 as under:- Assessment Year Amount of Penalty 2006-07 `2,99,016/- 2007-08 `94,49,969/- 2008-09 `35,172/- 9. At the time of hearing before us, it is contended by the learned counsel that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is 5 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others barred by limitation. Since the facts

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

154 as under:- Assessment Year Amount of Penalty 2006-07 `2,99,016/- 2007-08 `94,49,969/- 2008-09 `35,172/- 9. At the time of hearing before us, it is contended by the learned counsel that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is 5 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others barred by limitation. Since the facts

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

154 as under:- Assessment Year Amount of Penalty 2006-07 `2,99,016/- 2007-08 `94,49,969/- 2008-09 `35,172/- 9. At the time of hearing before us, it is contended by the learned counsel that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is 5 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others barred by limitation. Since the facts

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in complete disregard of settled principle of law.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy in both the aforesaid identical appeals at hand are : on the basis of completed assessment under section 143 (3)/153A assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,33,34,120/- and Rs.1

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, in complete disregard of settled principle of law.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy in both the aforesaid identical appeals at hand are : on the basis of completed assessment under section 143 (3)/153A assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,33,34,120/- and Rs.1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? DCIT Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowances made by the AO on account of claim of loss on account of Mark to Market