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

220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed by the assessee to speculative loss as determined by the Assessing Officer would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence

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

220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed by the assessee to speculative loss as determined by the Assessing Officer would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence

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

220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed by the assessee to speculative loss as determined by the Assessing Officer would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence

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

220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed by the assessee to speculative loss as determined by the Assessing Officer would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence

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

220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed by the assessee to speculative loss as determined by the Assessing Officer would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence

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

220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed by the assessee to speculative loss as determined by the Assessing Officer would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

2 CIT Vs Prasanna Duqar T20151 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta)/T20151 371 ITR 19 (Calcutta)(MAG.)/r20151 279 CTR 86 (Calcutta) Where Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that even where subsequent to search, O' assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied under section 271

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

2 CIT Vs Prasanna Duqar T20151 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta)/T20151 371 ITR 19 (Calcutta)(MAG.)/r20151 279 CTR 86 (Calcutta) Where Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that even where subsequent to search, O' assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied under section 271

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

2 CIT Vs Prasanna Duqar T20151 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta)/T20151 371 ITR 19 (Calcutta)(MAG.)/r20151 279 CTR 86 (Calcutta) Where Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that even where subsequent to search, O' assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied under section 271

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

220/- . Addition u/s 143(3) was made vide order dated 26.09.2008 on total income of Rs.3,64,15,637/- under normal provisions and at Rs.3,61,09,972/-- u/s 115JB. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition under normal provisions but confirmed the addition u/s 115JB stating as under:- "In the event of non-filing of details and non-filing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DEEPALI DESIGN & EXHIBITS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle-17 Vs. M/S Deepali Designs & Exhibits 9, 1St Floor, Behind Punjab Room No. 103, First Floor, Hall No. 1, Kesri, Wazirpur Industrial Ara Centre, Area, New Delhi – 110 035 E-2, Jhandewalan, (Pan: Aaffd1639M) New Delhi – 110 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Sh. Ridhi Karan Agarwal, Ca

220/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 18.3.2016. Aggrieved with the order of the penalty order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) on the legal ground relating to recording of satisfaction as well as on merit, who vide order dated 8.9.2016 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty in dispute

SATPAL SAINI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

220/-. However, the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was made on total income of Rs.33,29,530/-. The AO made the addition of Rs.27,96,311/- on account of capital gain from the sale of 4 kanal land situated in village Barkatabad. The said land was claimed to be agricultural land on which no capital gain was 2

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of the penalty order, has levied the penalty by holding that the explanation filed by the assessee is not acceptable. As per section 271(1)(c), Explanation 1, penalty can be levied only if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is false or offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

271,11,88,127 5,43,930 Reasons for difference :- 13 1. Turnover that was mistakenly shown less in the month of May has been shown more the same amount in the month of October in order to nullify the impact. 2. Turnover mistakenly shown more by Rs. 5,43,930/- in the month of March ….. . 12. It is thus

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

2) and not added disallowances made u/s 14(A) tom its book profit as required under clause (F) of explanation of sec 115JB. 3."The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 34,55,511/- imposed ii]» 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that assessee has concealed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue has no force and the same is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

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

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy in both the aforesaid identical appeals at hand are : on the basis of completed assessment under section 143 (3)/153A assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,33,34,120/- and Rs.1,27,77,850/- by making addition of Rs.57,88,881/- & Rs.1

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

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

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy in both the aforesaid identical appeals at hand are : on the basis of completed assessment under section 143 (3)/153A assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,33,34,120/- and Rs.1,27,77,850/- by making addition of Rs.57,88,881/- & Rs.1