HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s

RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Central Circle – 6, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aadcr 5053 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Farhad Khan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s

AESTHETICA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 271(l)(c) of the Act. We find that the identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09 and the Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s

AESTHETICA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 271(l)(c) of the Act. We find that the identical issue arose in the case of the assessee in A.Y. 2008-09 and the Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 21.01.2021 has deleted the penalty by observing as under: “3. Search and seizure action u/s

RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s 274 Read with Sec. 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filing of inaccurate particular of income or concealment of particular of income and as such the notice

MONA INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

u/s 245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of related person in case of Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 order dated 21.01.2021), the Tribunal has dealt the issue of penalty itself. The same was decided in favour of the assessee therein, thereby deleting the penalty. In fact, in the present

MONA INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

u/s 245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of related person in case of Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 order dated 21.01.2021), the Tribunal has dealt the issue of penalty itself. The same was decided in favour of the assessee therein, thereby deleting the penalty. In fact, in the present

MONA INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

u/s 245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of related person in case of Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 order dated 21.01.2021), the Tribunal has dealt the issue of penalty itself. The same was decided in favour of the assessee therein, thereby deleting the penalty. In fact, in the present

MONA INFOTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

u/s 245C of the Act before the Income Tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of related person in case of Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 5088/Del/2017 order dated 21.01.2021), the Tribunal has dealt the issue of penalty itself. The same was decided in favour of the assessee therein, thereby deleting the penalty. In fact, in the present

RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

u/s 245C of the Act declaring additional income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee’s application was rejected by Settlement Commission. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under section 153C vide order dated 20.06.2014 and the total income was determined by making addition of Rs.1 lakh being the additional income declared before Settlement Commission. On the aforesaid addition, AO vide penalty

RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

u/s 245C of the Act declaring additional income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee’s application was rejected by Settlement Commission. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under section 153C vide order dated 20.06.2014 and the total income was determined by making addition of Rs.1 lakh being the additional income declared before Settlement Commission. On the aforesaid addition, AO vide penalty

RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

u/s 245C of the Act declaring additional income of Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee’s application was rejected by Settlement Commission. Thereafter, the assessment was framed under section 153C vide order dated 20.06.2014 and the total income was determined by making addition of Rs.1 lakh being the additional income declared before Settlement Commission. On the aforesaid addition, AO vide penalty

SH. SURESH GULATI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -23(1), Sh. Suresh Gulati, 42, Hemkunt Colony, Greater Kailash-I, New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Agrpg7611E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Chandhok, Advocate Respondent By Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 05/02/2014 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxiii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13, Raising Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Dated 05.02.2014 Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S 272A(1)(C) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act Imposed On Non-Compliance Of Summons U/S 131 Of The Act. 2.1 That The Assessee Sought Adjournment In Response To The Notice Dated 28.01.2014 Fixing Hearing On 05.02.2014. The Order Has Been Passed By The Learned Cit(A) On 05.02.2014 Itself Despite The Fact That A Letter For Adjournment Was Filed On The Same Date.

u/s 131 of the Act. 2.1 That the assessee sought adjournment in response to the notice dated 28.01.2014 fixing hearing on 05.02.2014. The order has been passed by the learned CIT(A) on 05.02.2014 itself despite the fact that a letter for adjournment was filed on the same date. 2 AY: 2012-13 3. The appellant craves leave

AVEE MEDI SURGICALS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

245C before the Income-tax Settlement Commission in the capacity of related person, but such application was rejected. Assessee also filed a writ petition before Hon’ble High court, where also he failed. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) on 20.06.2014 at an income of Rs.1,00,000/- by making addition of this amount as additional

M/S. ADITYA MEDICOS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

section 271(1))c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s. 274 read with sec. 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particular of income and as such the notice

AVEE MEDI SURGICALS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Mahavir Prasad

section 271(1))c) of the Act is void as the notice u/s. 274 read with sec. 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particular of income and as such the notice