BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable on claims made but negated by a subsequent amendment. 5. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the penalty had been imposed correctly. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. As far as the penalty

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable on claims made but negated by a subsequent amendment. 5. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the penalty had been imposed correctly. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. As far as the penalty

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

NEW SAMRAT METALS CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.2470/Del./2017 M/s. New Samrat Metals Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That the CIT (A) is erred under the law while partly confirming the order of A.O., imposing the penalty u/s 271(1

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act, taxing the receipts amounting to Rs. 7,94,63,248/- under s. 44BB

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act, taxing the receipts amounting to Rs. 7,94,63,248/- under s. 44BB

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year 2019-20 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act, taxing the receipts amounting to Rs. 7,94,63,248/- under s. 44BB

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

244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 13. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred

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

244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 13. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred

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

244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. 13. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred

KEYSTONE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated. Besides that the Ld AR submitted that on merit penalty has been imposed due to impugned addition relating to interest u/s 244A

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

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

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

244A of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds of Appeal for AY 2012-13 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order passed by the Learned

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

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

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

244A of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds of Appeal for AY 2012-13 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order passed by the Learned

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM ASIA PACIFIC, INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

244A of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds of Appeal for AY 2012-13 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order passed by the Learned

TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEMASIA PACIFIC, INC.,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

244A of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Grounds of Appeal for AY 2012-13 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order passed by the Learned

MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishimahavir Prasad Gupta, Vs. Acit, E-165, Shastri Nagar, Circle-38(1), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Agwpg5362M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the levy of penalty amounting to Rs.17,01,220/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances