OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 9. That the interest under section 234A of Rs. 5,85,74,495/- levied for not filing of the return was legally incorrect as there was no legal requirement

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 9. That the interest under section 234A of Rs. 5,85,74,495/- levied for not filing of the return was legally incorrect as there was no legal requirement

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 9. That the interest under section 234A of Rs. 5,85,74,495/- levied for not filing of the return was legally incorrect as there was no legal requirement

S. AVTAR SINGH KOCHAR,ROHTAK vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charyavtar Singh Kochar, Vs. Dcit, C/O. S. K. Bansal, Ca, Central Circle-25, 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi Jhajjar Road, Rohtak Pan: Aeopk4447F (Appellant) (Respondent)

3. That the Ld. A.O. has erred in law as well as on facts in imposing Penalty of Rs. 2,00,00,000 u/s 271 AAA and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the appeal based on incomplete and wrong information that total payment of taxes in respect

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’).

3. Multivision Infotech (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT {2017} 88 taxmann.com 874 4. Fairdeal Tradelink Company Vs. ITO ITA No.3445/Mum/2016 (Mum) 5. CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginnin Factory {2013} 359 ITR 565 6. CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows {2016} 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) 7. Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT {2021} 434 ITR 1 (Bom) 8. PCIT Vs. Sahara India

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

234A of the Act till the date of completion of the assessment whereas in assessment under section 143(3), the terminal date of calculating interest is the date of filing of return. Under section 246A of the Act, separate appeal is provided for the assessment made under section 144 of the Act. In the case of a best judgment assessment

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

234A of the Act till the date of completion of the assessment whereas in assessment under section 143(3), the terminal date of calculating interest is the date of filing of return. Under section 246A of the Act, separate appeal is provided for the assessment made under section 144 of the Act. In the case of a best judgment assessment

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant is a non-resident and tax is deductible from the income of the Appellant. 9. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct

DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MINERALS MANAGEMENTS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

3,74,62,030/-. Credit for prepaid taxes is given. Requisite documents are issued. Interest is charged u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D as per rules. Penalty proceedings under section 271

GAUTAM KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue demand notice and challan alongwith a copy of this order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income

GAUTAM KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue demand notice and challan alongwith a copy of this order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Kashyap & Co., Cas, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazpa6461C Assessee By : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019

3 Vijay Agarwal limb he is initiating the penalty proceedings i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Further, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the case is squarely covered by the order of the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance ltd in ITA No. 475/2019 dated

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Kashyap & Co., Cas, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazpa6461C Assessee By : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019

3 Vijay Agarwal limb he is initiating the penalty proceedings i.e. for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Further, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that the case is squarely covered by the order of the jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance ltd in ITA No. 475/2019 dated

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

234A of Rs 3,09,419/-, u/s 234B of Rs 3,31,07,870/- and u/s 234D of Rs 192/-. 9. That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

234A of Rs 3,09,419/-, u/s 234B of Rs 3,31,07,870/- and u/s 234D of Rs 192/-. 9. That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

234A of Rs 3,09,419/-, u/s 234B of Rs 3,31,07,870/- and u/s 234D of Rs 192/-. 9. That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal

SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

234A of Rs 3,09,419/-, u/s 234B of Rs 3,31,07,870/- and u/s 234D of Rs 192/-. 9. That the grounds of appeal as herein are without prejudice to each other. 10. That the appellant craves the right to add, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal