GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

227 CTR 635] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271(1 )(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 10. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman

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

227 CTR 635] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 12. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the facts and 10 circumstances of the case. This reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative holding that the Tribunal was justified in doing so." xi) ITA No. 393/2015 Pr CIT vs. Prashant Shrivastava "11. It is not the Revenue's case that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

271-E of the Act, a sum equal to repayment of loan. In view of above, it is requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WASHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

271-E of the Act, a sum equal to repayment of loan. In view of above, it is requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act? DCIT Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on disallowances made by the AO on account of claim of loss on account of Mark to Market

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

227 taxman 253 (P&H) The ld. DR relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raised by the Id. A.R during the course of hearing of the appeal as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty 271 (1 )(c) was not admissible and thus

YORK SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 271(1)(c) is illegal as the printed from without specifically mentioning the proceedings whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be deleted. He further submitted that Ld. 6 CIT(A) also erred confirming the penalty by overlooking

SURESH JINDAL,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08

227 CTR 635] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years. 10. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman

SURESH PRASAD AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6031/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income P-8, Green Park Extension, Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapa3267H Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxviii, New Delhi.

227/- by making an addition of Rs.1,01,497/-. The assessee filed the revised statement of long term capital gain showing Rs.1,01,497/- as taxable i.e. with 2 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal indexation of Rs.25,353/- + without indexation of Rs.76,144/-. The AO added the said amount to the income of the assessee and also initiated the proceedings u/s 271

LATE JITENDER SAPRA (THROUGH WIFE ANJALI SAPRA),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 50(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

227-28, Anarkali Complex, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUJPS2662R Assessee by : Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. GOYAL M.G GASES P. LTD.

The appeal is allowed; no costs

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(c) of the Act? (ii). Whether the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty ignoring the material fact that the transaction was ITA 58/2008 Page 2 treated as sham by ITAT as well as by this court (227 ITR 536) in the quantum proceedings?” 2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year

VINAY SUBHIKHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 72(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kant

u/s 68 in the quantum assessment order nor the penalty was actually levied by the assessing officer. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating that (a) all material facts were duly disclosed by the appellant (b) no penalty is leviable qua additions

VINAY SUBHIKHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 72(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kant

u/s 68 in the quantum assessment order nor the penalty was actually levied by the assessing officer. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating that (a) all material facts were duly disclosed by the appellant (b) no penalty is leviable qua additions

VINAY SUBHIKHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 72(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Kant

u/s 68 in the quantum assessment order nor the penalty was actually levied by the assessing officer. 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating that (a) all material facts were duly disclosed by the appellant (b) no penalty is leviable qua additions

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (C) of the income tax act, 1961 by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, central circle – 20, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per order dated 28/3/2013 of INR 9507003/–. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6476/Del/2013:- “1. That the learned