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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

Section 43B of the Act. The quantum of amount involved was Rs.4,48,19,194/- 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee and uphold levy of penalty u/s 271

GAJENDER SINGH JADON,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-57(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2006-07 Gajender Singh Jadon, Vs. Acit, Circle-57(5), C-2/785, Street No. 14, New Delhi. 2 Pushta Road, Sonia Vihar, New Delhi. Pan Ahipj6180B (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1X0 of Rs.4,36,060/- is arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 8. That the levy of penalty is illegal, unjust and not in accordance with law as the mandatory requirements of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act have not been met in the instant case. 9. That in the absence of satisfaction in the assessment order

RAMJILAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

194/- understated and taxed in the previous year ended on 31.3.2011. That in view of the position stated above and pursuance of the assessee company decision to offer the undervalued stock as its additional income and the assessee company offers the above said income as its additional income. The assessee hereby discloses voluntarily and in good faith a total

JATINDER PAL SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. Although assessee has raised various grounds but ld. Counsel for the assessee began with an additional ground which reads as under :- “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the penalty order passed

DCIT CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

194-I of the Act at the time such deduction had to be made. 3.5 The learned Commissioner further relied upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA nos. 5805, 5806, 5349/Del/2019 dated 23.07.2019], wherein also the payments have been made as EDC charges

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Teleserviceslimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi Districtcentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. GROUND 9: That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not considering the contentions and grounds raised by the Appellant Each of the grounds or sub-grounds are in the alternative and is without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw

AVAYA INTERNATIONAL SALES LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- INT. TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaavaya International Sales Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Circle-International Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, Taxation 1(1)(1), Dlf Centre Court Building, New Delhi Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Dcit, Vs. Avaya International Sales Ltd, Circle-1(1)(1), C/O. Mr. Rohit Verma Ernst & Young Llp, 1St Floor, Tower B, International Taxation, New Delhi Dlf Centre Court Building, Sector-42, Gold Course, Gurgaon-122002 (Assessee ) (Respondent) Pan: Aakca7138A Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2023

u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the AO, ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee Avaya International Sales Limited (Avaya Ireland' or 'the Assessee') is a company incorporated