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. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

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. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

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. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

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

MUKESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271 (1) ( C ) of the act and prosecution by obtaining the order of the learned settlement commission. He therefore submitted that for this reason the order passed by the learned assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 15. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities

GUNJAN GARG,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271 (1) ( C ) of the act and prosecution by obtaining the order of the learned settlement commission. He therefore submitted that for this reason the order passed by the learned assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 15. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs. OJJUS MEDICARE PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

penalty of Rs. 10,000/- will be imposed upon you under section 272A(1 )(d)/ 271(1 )(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 12. The writ petition thereafter came to be instituted on 27 March 2023. On the first date of consideration and more particularly on 28 March 2023, an interim order was passed to the effect that while