LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(A), NOIDA

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in terms of our observations as contained in the preceding

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

194C while making payment 6 ITA no.7895, 7896/Del/2017) (L G Electronics India P. Ltd.) to vendors, while levying penalty qua disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. That the order passed by the CIT(A) levying penalty under section 271(1) (c), being beyond limitation prescribed under section

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

PATI BEL (JV),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Pati Bell (Iv) Vs Acit C/O. Ue Development India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-62(1) No. 116, 702, 7Th Floor, Pride Hulkul, New Delhi Lalbagh, Bengaluru, Karnataka Pan-Aaffp1650G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

194C/ 195 of the Act and the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in levying penalty under Section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating the view of the Appellant that reimbursement of expenses

M/S. GOODLUCK COMMERCIALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishigoodluck Commercials Ltd, Vs. Ito, 211, Basal Plaza, 2122, Ward-12(2), Bhadurgarh Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg4081C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271 (1)( c ) of Income Tax Act, 1961, as the appellant had neither concealed particulars of income nor misrepresented the same. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi, erred in upholding levying penalty of Rs. 3,36,600/- u/s 271

SARV ESTATE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

194C of the Act. Since, assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, it is liable for penalty under section 271C of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that obligation to pay EDC charges is arising out of the license granted by DTCP and these payments are to be made for obtaining the license

SARV ESTATE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

194C of the Act. Since, assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, it is liable for penalty under section 271C of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that obligation to pay EDC charges is arising out of the license granted by DTCP and these payments are to be made for obtaining the license

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

194C of the Act. Since, assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, it is liable for penalty under section 271C of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that obligation to pay EDC charges is arising out of the license granted by DTCP and these payments are to be made for obtaining the license

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

194C of the Act. Since, assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, it is liable for penalty under section 271C of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that obligation to pay EDC charges is arising out of the license granted by DTCP and these payments are to be made for obtaining the license

PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE 76, NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 6261/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

sections under which the assesse is required to withhold the tax on EDC/IDC payments and the penalty orders are passed purely on the mercy of Ld AO & relying on the basis of survey report. 8) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A grossly erred in not deleting the impugned penalty

SANTUR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

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

section 194C on payments of EDC to HUDA as the same can not be termed as payment to contractors. 4. Without prejudice to the above and under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in upholding the Penalty order of Id. Assessing Authority as the penalty u/s 271

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]

194C of the Act. Since, assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, it is liable for penalty under section 271C of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that obligation to pay EDC charges is arising out of the license granted by DTCP and these payments are to be made for obtaining the license

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(C) of the income tax act imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,27,400/- for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(C) of the income tax act imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,27,400/- for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(C) of the income tax act imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,27,400/- for non deduction of TDS under section 194C

PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE 76, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and penalty imposed by the A

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6262/Del/2019 (A.Y 2017-18)

271 C of the Act by imposing penalty for the year under consideration of Rs. 14,24,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 12/01/2018 the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 27/06/2019 dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order impugned dated 27/06/2019 passed by Ld.CIT(A), the assessee

VIRESH PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-78, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7436/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

194C of the Act. Since, assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, it is liable for penalty under section 271C of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that obligation to pay EDC charges is arising out of the license granted by DTCP and these payments are to be made for obtaining the license

ITO, NOIDA vs. M/S. E. TRANSITION SYSTEMS, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. E. Transition Systems, C-601, Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(1), Noida Flex Apartments, Block No. C- 58/22, Sector -62, Noida Pan : Aabfe9827E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing 01.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida, Dated 10.02.2014, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is in respect of the disallowance of amount of Rs.1,21,88,366/- and Rs.9,68,169/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. The first disallowance of Rs.1,21,88,336/- has already been deleted by the Tribunal and against which

SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmashree Vardhman Developers Vs. Jcit, Private Limited, Range-77 301-311, Indraprakash Building, New Delhi 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaccv1495M Appellant Respondent

194C of the Act. Since, assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, it is liable for penalty under section 271C of the Act. On the other hand, the case of the assessee is that obligation to pay EDC charges is arising out of the license granted by DTCP and these payments are to be made for obtaining the license