INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2. 27.03.2015 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed levying penalty of Rs. 20,33,93,765/- 3. 23.02.2017 The above penalty order dt. 27.03.2015 deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) -7. New Delhi. 4. 13.05.2021 Application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 filed by the assessee as stated by the assessee in para

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2. 27.03.2015 Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed levying penalty of Rs. 20,33,93,765/- 3. 23.02.2017 The above penalty order dt. 27.03.2015 deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) -7. New Delhi. 4. 13.05.2021 Application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 filed by the assessee as stated by the assessee in para

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

section 274 of for the assessment year 2010- 11 -regarding. Please refer to the above mentioned subject. The Hon’ble ITAT vide appellate order ITA No.l42/Del/2017 dated 05.01.2018 has pronounced the order therefore in order to decide the pending penalty proceeding you are hereby given the show cause notice as to why the penalty should not be levied u/s 271

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

Section 271(1)(c) and non-application of mind of the AO. 6. Therefore, in the absence of specification of the limb, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be initiated and the penalty notice issued to the assessee dated 08.03.2016 is defective and therefore the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty is correct. B. No penalty

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

2. In this regard, on perusal of the assessment order dated\n28.12.2007, the AO had initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in\npara no.10 as under:-\n10.\nI am also satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of income and suppressed the taxable income as discussed\nPara No.7, 8 and 9 as discussed above, therefore, penalty

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty, particularly when the notice issued under section 274 of the Act did not mention the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was to be imposed. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

2: Regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on addition made on the basis of Section 50C 6 Shyam Sunder Kansal

UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty has been levied. Since, the notice is ambiguous no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied on ambiguous and defective notice. 14. Per contra, Ms. Monika Singh representing the department vehemently defended the penalty order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 15. Both sides

UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty has been levied. Since, the notice is ambiguous no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied on ambiguous and defective notice. 14. Per contra, Ms. Monika Singh representing the department vehemently defended the penalty order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 15. Both sides

UNITECH HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty has been levied. Since, the notice is ambiguous no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied on ambiguous and defective notice. 14. Per contra, Ms. Monika Singh representing the department vehemently defended the penalty order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 15. Both sides

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(15). The assessee has concealed facts from the AO during the first assessment proceedings and furnished incorrect information as well. In view of clear violation of Sec-13(l)(d) r.w.s 13(30 r.w.s 11(5) of Act, 1961, exemption u/s 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. 6. Hence, the income of the assessee in taxed