HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

penalty was rightly levied upon the assessee u/s 271 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. For the reasons explained hereafter the Court is of the view that the above question requires to be reframed. Background facts 4. The background facts require to be narrated. The Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of soft drinks

SHRI KRISHNA JEWELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal and bad in law and consequently penalty order passed is also illegal and bad in law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining penalty of Rs.16,41,194/- under section

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

SOREGAM SA,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONTAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

SOREGAM SA ,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1998-99

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as invalid since the show cause notice and the penalty order passed by the AO are in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence the infirmity, if any, in these are taken care of by the provisions of Section 292B of the Income

AJIT SINGH ,. vs. ITO WARD-1, GURGOAN , .

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.112/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Ajit Singh Ito, H-35, First Floor, Jangpura Extn., Vs. Ward-1, 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Bldg., New Delhi. Pan No.Ahkpss666H Udhyog Vihar, Phase-5, Near Shankar Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

ANIL KUMAR LAKHINA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5405/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Anil Kumar Lakhina Acit 203, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Vs. Circle 30(1), Pan No.Aazpl4961G Room No.1302, 13Th Floor, Civic Centre, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

KARNAL CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD,KARNAL vs. ACIT CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwalआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6334/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd. Acit, Meerut Road, Karnal, Vs. Circle, Haryana. Ff, Ayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Aaffk9357F Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

ARUN DWIVEDI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6123/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Arun Dwivedi, Acit, B-12, Vivekanand Puri, Vs. Circle-9(2), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi. Pan No.Aalpd4998F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

194 Taxman 311/T20111 336 ITR 162. 15. Having heard Mr Kumar and perused the record, in our view, there cannot be any dispute, that the AO failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice, as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the Act was triggered vis-a-vis the respondent/assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOMIC ZF COMPONENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5312/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Vs M/S Somic Zf Components Ltd. Central Circle-25, (Earlier Known As M/S Sona Somic New Delhi Lemforder Components Ltd.), B-59, (Lgf), Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs4766Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 03.06.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-29, New Delhi.

194 taxman 387 (Delhi) in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (available in NJRS as 2010-LL-0826-2), held that when the tax payable on income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of section 115JB of the Act, then penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could

SH. LT. COL. DR. ARVIND KUMAR CHATURVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty so sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and may please be deleted. 2 ITA No.6809/Del./2013 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law while confirming the levy & imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act, 1961 on the consultancy

M/S. PERFECT SPRAY PAC PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed and consequently penalty order stands quashed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, the assessee has willfully and knowingly filed concealed particulars of income to the extent of Rs.7,28,194/ - in respect of profit on undisclosed sales as confirmed by, the Hon'ble IT AT in its order and as per the Explanation 1 to Section

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result solitary issue raised in the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihindustan Coca Cola Marketing Vs. Ito, Company Pvt. Ltd, Ward-11(3), 13, Abhul Fazar Road, Cr Building, New Delhi Bangali Market, New Delhi Pan:Aabch1541D (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1) ( c) of the Act where assessment has been completed under the provisions of Section 115JB at returned income thereby rendering penalty proceedings non-est in law.” 2. Though assessee has raised almost 4 grounds of appeal, however, the main contest remains against the penalty levied by the Ld. assessing officer and confirmed

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (C) of the income tax act, 1961 by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, central circle – 20, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per order dated 28/3/2013 of INR 9507003/–. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6476/Del/2013:- “1. That the learned