THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27IE of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.2,06,82,566/- u/s.271E of the Act for violation of provisions of sec.269T. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) and Ld. AO, this appeal has been preferred to get justice. 3 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27IE of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.2,06,82,566/- u/s.271E of the Act for violation of provisions of sec.269T. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) and Ld. AO, this appeal has been preferred to get justice. 3 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the facts and 10 circumstances of the case. This reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative holding that the Tribunal was justified in doing so." xi) ITA No. 393/2015 Pr CIT vs. Prashant Shrivastava "11. It is not the Revenue's case that

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect. Penalty u/s

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WASHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

172 (Raj.) 7.1 In the following cases, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT have also cancelled the penalties lev,ed u/s 271D even where loans/deposits were taken in cash. a) Shreenathji Corporation vs. ACIT 58 TTJ 611 b) Ganesh Wooden Industries ITA No.1626/Ahd./1997, Bench “SMC" order dated 8.7.2002. In the light of the above discussion made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

172 (Raj.) 7.1 In the following cases, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT have also cancelled the penalties lev,ed u/s 271D even where loans/deposits were taken in cash. a) Shreenathji Corporation vs. ACIT 58 TTJ 611 b) Ganesh Wooden Industries ITA No.1626/Ahd./1997, Bench “SMC" order dated 8.7.2002. In the light of the above discussion made

MANU BALI,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act on the amount added for which inaccurate particulars has been furnished. In view of the above, he stated that entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law and in order to support his contention, he placed the reliance on the following decisions:- - Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 27 l(l)(c) of the Act is not leviable in case of the assessee: I) Difference of Opinion - Not a fit Case to levy Penalty. Case laws relied upon by the assessee in this regard are as under: a) CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [(2010) 322ITR 158] (SC) b) CIT vs. Nath Bros. Exim International

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

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 and the date of order for all the three years are common, we shall consider the order for assessment year

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

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 and the date of order for all the three years are common, we shall consider the order for assessment year

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

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 and the date of order for all the three years are common, we shall consider the order for assessment year

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

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 and the date of order for all the three years are common, we shall consider the order for assessment year

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

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 and the date of order for all the three years are common, we shall consider the order for assessment year

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

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 and the date of order for all the three years are common, we shall consider the order for assessment year

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

172 Taxman 386 (SC) that provision of Explanation 4 appended to section 271 of the IT Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 is applicable with the retrospective effect. Therefore, the AO has correctly rejected the second plea of the appellate. Jet Lite (India) Ltd 6.5 In view of the above discussion

M/S. M & M MACHINE CRAFT (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) is attracted to confirm the penalty levied on the assessee company. 19. Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that penalty initiated on the basis of addition of Rs.30,000/- made u/s 40A(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS cannot be levied as proper disclosure was made by the assessee and relied upon

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. M/S MUTHOOT FINANCIERS,NEW DELHI.

penalty imposed u/s 271-D of the I.T. Act in view of the IT Act.” 2015:DHC:1047-DB ITA No.336/2002 & connected matters Page 7 of 19 6. On further appeals, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, in short), was of the view that the effect that advanced made to the firm by one of its partners cannot be regarded

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271-E in the years in question. On this issue also revenue’s appeals are dismissed.” 11. The revenue is in appeal before this Court contending that the order of the Tribunal is untenable in as much as it holds that since the business of the assessee itself is to collect and repay deposits, there can be no violation