COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

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

249 (SC) as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the Return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

u/s 271(1) ( c) cannot be levied. Hon Supreme court in case of CIT V Reliance Petro products Limited [322 ITR 158] (SUPREME COURT ) has held that “10. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

u/s 271(1) ( c) cannot be levied. Hon Supreme court in case of CIT V Reliance Petro products Limited [322 ITR 158] (SUPREME COURT ) has held that “10. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI ALOK GARG, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpg7151K Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Aligarh.

Section 271(l)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(2009) 23VST 249 (SC)] as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

JDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VOITH SIEMENS HYDRO KRAFTWERSKETECHNIK GMBH & CO., KG, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 13. In this behalf the observations of this court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings under the Tamil Nadu General Sales

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

249 ITR 670) will apply even after insertion of Explanation 4 to section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976? Facts and Question 2: 2. To supply some factual content it would be sufficient for us to refer to the facts in the case of ITA 2051f|^. For the assessment year

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

MS. SHILPY SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 271(1)(c) and hence, I confirm the penalty of Rs.11,63,947/- as imposed by the AO vide his order dated 07.06.2012 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.” 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SRF LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1995-96 Vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Block-C, Sector - Acit, Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, C.R. Building, New Delhi 45, Gurgaon Pan : Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 06/03/2012 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 1995-96, In Respect Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Levied By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.3,43,70,911/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves To Amend Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground Of Appeal At Any Tiem Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

u/s 271(1)(c) and assessment order passed by assessing officer, also gone through the order of my predecessor as well as order passed by the Hon’ble ITAT and other details like Computation of taxable income for the relevant assessment year of the assessee. I find that Guest house expenses, prior period expenses and Provision for bad and doubtful

SPIRIT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty U/s 271(l)(c) has been erroneously and unlawfully accepted merely on the application signed by the counsels for the assessee, and not on an application signed by the assessee as is required by the provision of section 148 r.w.s. 249

SPIRIT INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty U/s 271(l)(c) has been erroneously and unlawfully accepted merely on the application signed by the counsels for the assessee, and not on an application signed by the assessee as is required by the provision of section 148 r.w.s. 249

SPIRIT GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

penalty U/s 271(l)(c) has been erroneously and unlawfully accepted merely on the application signed by the counsels for the assessee, and not on an application signed by the assessee as is required by the provision of section 148 r.w.s. 249