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

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

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

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

249\n13.05.2015\n2983/DEL-\n2015\nG\n2006-07 422/14-15 27.02.2015\n62,587,356 13.05.2015\n2984/DEL-\n2015\nG\n2007-08 417/14-15 27.02.2015\n52,363,198 13.05.2015\n2985/DEL-\n2015\nG\n189,469,803\n6. Appeal against penalties levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act for the above\nadditions were successfully represented by the same previous counsel\nbefore CIT (Appeals). Departmental appeals against

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

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

P M NARGUNAM,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 304/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) बनाम P M Nargunam, Acit No. 1, Santosh Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-6, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aaepn9976E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are further wrong as against the law and to the facts of the case. 17. That the appellant assails her right to amend, alter or change any grounds of appeal at any time even during the course of hearing of this instant appeal.” The assessee has raised the following additional

SUBHASH GUJAR,JHAJJAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

249 (Del) Society for Wordwide Inter Bank Financial Telecom 1.3 In his written submission dt. 8.3.202, Ld. DR is trying to take shelter u/s 292BB of the Act. In this regard, it is to submit that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a basic jurisdictional error and cannot be cured/ condoned by referring to section 292BB

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

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

249 (Del) (Para 8) and CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) Therefore, it is evident from perusal of assessment order and above facts, no notice under section 143(2} of IT Act was ever issued after examination of return of income and audited financial statements as discussed above. 3. Recording of reason after taking approval under section

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

249 (Del) (Para 8) and CIT v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All.) Therefore, it is evident from perusal of assessment order and above facts, no notice under section 143(2} of IT Act was ever issued after examination of return of income and audited financial statements as discussed above. 3. Recording of reason after taking approval under section

ZHILMIL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeals are independent of and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.” The issues

PINGASH MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeals are independent of and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.” The issues

SHANTA BLANKETS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeals are independent of and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.” The issues

GOPESH FABRICS PVT. LTD.,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3) , FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeals are independent of and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.” The issues

VIDHI CINEMAS PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, Appeals in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No.84/Del/2021, A.Y.2016-17)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeals are independent of and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any grounds herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing of these grounds.” The issues

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

249 ITR 670 (SC) is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to section 271(l)(c) was not in existence. The view of this court in Harprasad's case [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes losses." Mr. Nikhil Sawhney (Emphasis

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

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