THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

234, case law paper- books and other documents physically as well as electronically on various dates. 5. The Learned Senior Counsel of the assessee referred to Ground 1 of the appeals and submitted that the orders imposing penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act are non-est, bad in law and without jurisdiction. He , at the outset, referred

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on account of disallowance of expenditure/claim. Reliance is placed on the following:- i) CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) "Penalty under s. 271(1)(c)-Concealment-Disallowance of claim for deduction-In order to attract the provisions ofs. 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of income

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that since it had disclosed all the material facts to the AO, it cannot be said that it had concealed particulars of income. However, the AO has observed on this issue and has relied

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that since it had disclosed all the material facts to the AO, it cannot be said that it had concealed particulars of income. However, the AO has observed on this issue and has relied

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

234-C of Rs. 218850. The Assessee paid balance demand of Rs. 87270 on 19-02-2020. 3) The Income Tax officer has also issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23-03-2021 and fixed hearing for 05-04-2021 for submission of reply for not imposing penalty

GE WIND ENERGY GMBH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

234/-, Rs.67,13,210/-, Rs.65,03,129/- & Rs.1,89,75,205/- for AYs 2001- 02, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively, penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by way of issuance of notice u/s 274 read with section

GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT , CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

234/-, Rs.67,13,210/-, Rs.65,03,129/- & Rs.1,89,75,205/- for AYs 2001- 02, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively, penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by way of issuance of notice u/s 274 read with section

GE ENERGY PARTS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

234/-, Rs.67,13,210/-, Rs.65,03,129/- & Rs.1,89,75,205/- for AYs 2001- 02, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively, penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by way of issuance of notice u/s 274 read with section

GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT , CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

234/-, Rs.67,13,210/-, Rs.65,03,129/- & Rs.1,89,75,205/- for AYs 2001- 02, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 respectively, penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by way of issuance of notice u/s 274 read with section

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED,WEST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by Assessing Officer by observing as under: “Assessed at net taxable income of Rs. 43,62,34,300/-. Since, tax on book profit is more than tax under normal provision, therefore charge tax at book profit of Rs. 71,57,92,161/-. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -IV NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD

In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

penalty of Rs.20,22,944/-, imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether or not the findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its order are perverse in law, in as much as it has disregarded the relevant material and evidence placed on record and submissions made

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD..,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

234 (11/5/1999) & CIT vs. Prem Das (No. 2) 248 ITR 237 (2/8/2000) has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in a case where the difference between the returned income and the assessed income arises on account of a difference in opinion. Similarly, in CIT vs. Geo Sea Foods : 1999 : 244 ITR 44 the Hon’ble Kerala

VED PARKASH BHARTI,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, KARNAL

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1509/Del/2015 is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Ved Parkash Bharti, Vs. Acit, S/O. Shri Parmanand, Central Circle, H. No. 1049-50, Sector-13-17, Karnal Huda, Panipat Pan: Aavpb5477D (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Karnal amounting to Rs. 2860160/- vide order dated 30.09.2013 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is confirmed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1) The search & seizure operation was conducted on Ved Bharti Group of case

AIRCON ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271 H. 8. The ld. DR submitted that in a number of cases, various High Courts have upheld the validity of provisions of section 234E which provides for imposition of fee for delayed filing of statement of TDS. Hon’ble High Courts have categorically held that the provisions are not ultra vires and not violative of constitution. The issue

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

271 H. 7. The ld. DR submitted that in a number of cases, various High Courts have upheld the validity of provisions of section 234E which provides for imposition of fee for delayed filing of statement of TDS. Hon’ble High Courts have categorically held that the provisions are not ultra vires and not violative of constitution. The issue

GOVT. GIRLS SR. SECONDARY SCHOOL, AGROHA,HISAR vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271 H. 8. The ld. DR submitted that in a number of cases, various High Courts have upheld the validity of provisions of section 234E which provides for imposition of fee for delayed filing of statement of TDS. Hon’ble High Courts have categorically held that the provisions are not ultra vires and not violative of constitution. The issue