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

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. On 11th November 1998 it entered into

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

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

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 SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

194C which amounts to Rs.183,515,604/- under the head of publicity expenses for Assessment Year 2010-11 and Rs. 13,028,911/- for Financial Year 2011-12. Since, the assessee has not produce any details the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

194C which amounts to Rs.183,515,604/- under the head of publicity expenses for Assessment Year 2010-11 and Rs. 13,028,911/- for Financial Year 2011-12. Since, the assessee has not produce any details the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

194C which amounts to Rs.183,515,604/- under the head of publicity expenses for Assessment Year 2010-11 and Rs. 13,028,911/- for Financial Year 2011-12. Since, the assessee has not produce any details the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From

M/S. SPICE MOBILITY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

194C which amounts to Rs.183,515,604/- under the head of publicity expenses for Assessment Year 2010-11 and Rs. 13,028,911/- for Financial Year 2011-12. Since, the assessee has not produce any details the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts and needs to be vacated.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts and needs to be vacated.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment year 2015-16 on the grounds inter alia that :- 2 ITA No.6844/Del./2014 “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty order dt. 11.01.2018 passed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act,1961 by the ld. Assessing Authority and upheld

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

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

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