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

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. 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

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

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

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

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 27 l(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Decided in favour of assessee. ” 6.2 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.57,88,000/- is deleted.” 3. The present appeal before us is filed by Revenue against the aforesaid impugned order dated 09.12.2016 of the CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in the present appeal, a synopsis was filed from the assessee’s side; the relevant portion of which is reproduced

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

penalty of Rs.5,23,076/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the submissions and explanations of the Assessee Company, which is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The assessee craves the right to add, amend or modify any ground of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in the case

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

penalty of Rs.5,23,076/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the submissions and explanations of the Assessee Company, which is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The assessee craves the right to add, amend or modify any ground of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in the case

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

penalty of Rs.5,23,076/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the submissions and explanations of the Assessee Company, which is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 2. The assessee craves the right to add, amend or modify any ground of appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that in the case

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c). Therefore, penalty u/s 271AAA levied @ 10% of Rs 8,00,000 is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the matter of levy of penalty on the concealed income of Rs 8,00,000 u/s 271(l)(c). 8.11 In view of the discussion above and the facts of the case, the imposition of penalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

section 271(l)(c) are being initiated separately." (B.l) As mentioned earlier, the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act for both the Assessment years i.e. for 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Assessing Officer, vide order dated 30.08.2013 for AY 2010-11 and vide order dated 30.09.2013 for AY 2011-12 , levied penalty