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)

u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D as per rules. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby

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

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 particulars

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

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 particulars

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

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 particulars

SMT. DEEPIKA BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

234C of IT Act. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the ITA Nos. 5714 & 5715/Del/2015 4 Satya & Deepika Bhalla I.T. Act for concealing/wrong/inaccurate particulars of income of Rs.6,80,375/- (1,23,000 + 5,57,375)” 5. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs.84,000/- made in respect

SMT. SATYA BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

234C of IT Act. Issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the ITA Nos. 5714 & 5715/Del/2015 4 Satya & Deepika Bhalla I.T. Act for concealing/wrong/inaccurate particulars of income of Rs.6,80,375/- (1,23,000 + 5,57,375)” 5. The assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition of Rs.84,000/- made in respect

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

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 Tax Act are initiated

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

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 Tax Act are initiated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NALWA STEEL & POWER LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishraa.Y. : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle 13(1), M/S Nalwa Steel & Power New Delhi Vs. Limited, Room No. 406, Cr Building, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ip Estate, New Delhi New Delhi

234C & 234D of the IT Act, issue demand notice and challan. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, have been initiated separately." The income of the assessee was thus assessed under section

INSPECTORATE INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Inspectorate International Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle-2(1)(1), 2, Perry Road, Witham Essex, International Taxation, New England Cm83Tu, Delhi Pan: Aacci3544A (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Inspectorate International Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle-2(1)(1), 2, Perry Road, Witham Essex, International Taxation, New England Cm83Tu, Delhi Pan: Aacci3544A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company filed its return of income on 13.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee

M/S. INSPECTORATE INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Inspectorate International Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle-2(1)(1), 2, Perry Road, Witham Essex, International Taxation, New England Cm83Tu, Delhi Pan: Aacci3544A (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Inspectorate International Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle-2(1)(1), 2, Perry Road, Witham Essex, International Taxation, New England Cm83Tu, Delhi Pan: Aacci3544A (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the ld AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company filed its return of income on 13.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

234C has been charged as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms. " The income of the assessee was thus assessed under section 115J8 and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234C has been charged as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms. " The income of the assessee was thus assessed under section 115J8 and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 115 JB of the Act resulted in calculation of profits at Rs. 40163180. 23. In view thereof, in conclusion, the assessment order records as follows:- “Assessed at Rs. 40163180 u/s 115 JB, being higher of two. Interest u/s 234B and 234C has been charged as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S. METENERE LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Metenere Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T 138-19, Main Road Central Circle – 18, Ghazipur, Delhi New Delhi Pan No: Aaacm 8484 F [Appellant] [Respondent]

234C & 234D as per law. - Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l){c) have been initiated separately.” 5. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated on the additions made while computing the income under normal provisions of the Act. It can be seen from the computation of income, as per the assessment order exhibited above, that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S BHUSHAN STEEL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A. C.I.T Vs. M/S Bhushan Steel Ltd Circle – 3 F-Block, International Trade Tower, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb 7445 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ashwini Kumar, Ca Shri Rahul Chourasia, Ca

234C & 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue necessary forms. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are being initiated separately” 10. Thus, it can be seen that the assessment is ultimately framed u/s 143(3) of the Act whereas the penalty has been levied on the additions made for computing the book profit

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD

Section 115 JB of the Act resulted in calculation of profits at Rs. 40163180. 23. In view thereof, in conclusion, the assessment order records as follows:- “Assessed at Rs. 40163180 u/s 115 JB, being higher of two. Interest u/s 234B and 234C has been charged as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

M/S. BARNALA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Suchitra Kamble

234C have been wrongly and illegally charged. The appellant has not committed any default of payment of Advance tax as it could not have anticipated such additions while estimating the current income. x. That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in non-quashing of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) which is wrongly initiated