BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

246 ITR 571 (Delhi), 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus. burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

246 ITR 327. 2. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in deleting the initiation of penalty. proceedings vide penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) on 26.05.2014 while passing assessment order u/s 144(C)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking into account

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

246 ITR 327. 2. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in deleting the initiation of penalty. proceedings vide penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) on 26.05.2014 while passing assessment order u/s 144(C)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without taking into account

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or subsection (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradcit, Central Circle- M/S. Thapar Homes 15 Limited, B-10, Vs Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 Pan No:Aaecm0840R (Appellant) (Respondent)

246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or 6 months from the end of the month in which the order of Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within

SUNIL DANDRAYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

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

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within

SUNIL DANDRIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

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

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOSER BAER INDIA LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately.” 3. Following this a penalty notice was issued to the Assessee on 8th March, 1999. The Assessee had requested the penalty proceedings to be kept in abeyance since it had filed a quantum appeal. After the quantum appeal of the Assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

GURMEET KAUR KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 45(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Gurmeet Kaur Kalra, Vs. Acit, Gb-8, Shivaji Vihar, Circle 45(1), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi Pan No. Afhpk8679R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was imposed on the assessee. 3. In appeal however the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of penalty and assessee has come before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal : “The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to one another : That on the facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. W.DIAMANT INDIA LTD.

u/s 271 (1)(c) have been initiated separately. Inform accordingly.? . . Following this, by a separate order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.11,63,755/-. . . The appeal against the said order filed by the Assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] on the ground that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. WISEE GLOBAL LIMITED

u/s 271 (1)(c) have been initiated separately. Assessed as above. Issue necessary forms.? . . Following this, by a separate order dated 24th March, 2005 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.32,98,708/-. The appeal against the said order filed by the Assessee was allowed by the Commissioner of Income