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

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-26(3), DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee being ITA\nNos.901 & 903/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-26(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-26(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-26(3), DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee being ITA\nNos.901 & 903/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

249 (Del). In that case, it was held that when surrender of the asset has been made on the date of search and when such surrender falls within the explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty was bound to be cancelled. 2012:DHC:7381-DB ITA 170/2012 Page 4 5. The assessee argued that since

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

ASHOK KUMAR GROVER,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES

271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court had followed the above judgment in the subsequent order in CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Supreme Court

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-26(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/- with the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with the observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s 142(1) and served the same via email

MD METRO TRANSIT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Us Vide Ita No.1581/Del/2020

u/s 249(3) of Income Tax Act, and dismissed the appeal in limine on limitation ground. The present appeal before us vide ITA No.1581/Del/2020 is filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29/11/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A). (A.1) Separately, proceedings were also initiated by the AO, under section 271(1)(c) of Income

MD METRO TRANSIT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Us Vide Ita No.1581/Del/2020

u/s 249(3) of Income Tax Act, and dismissed the appeal in limine on limitation ground. The present appeal before us vide ITA No.1581/Del/2020 is filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 29/11/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A). (A.1) Separately, proceedings were also initiated by the AO, under section 271(1)(c) of Income

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- and interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- observing as under: “7.1.1 On perusal of details filed during the course of assessment proceedings it is seen that the assessee has claimed huge depreciation of Rs.74,41,47,30.5/- in respect of intangible

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal