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

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

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

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

2 to para no. 4 of that decision and subsequently in para no. 5 wherein it has been held by the Coordinate Bench that it cannot be added or disallowed under the computation of income under normal method under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, it is apparent that above two judicial precedents has clearly established that addition

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

2 to para no. 4 of that decision and subsequently in para no. 5 wherein it has been held by the Coordinate Bench that it cannot be added or disallowed under the computation of income under normal method under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, it is apparent that above two judicial precedents has clearly established that addition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

2. The question of law framed in respect of ITA 1217/2010, 1219/2010, 1221/2010, 1231/2010 and 1233/2010 reads as follows : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can uphold the penalty by invoking the main provision of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when the charge in the initiation of proceedings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

2. The question of law framed in respect of ITA 1217/2010, 1219/2010, 1221/2010, 1231/2010 and 1233/2010 reads as follows : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can uphold the penalty by invoking the main provision of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act when the charge in the initiation of proceedings

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.

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 6 Alok Garg 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

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

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

2) of Indo Germany DTAA. On Appeal ITAT also dismissed the appeal of the assessee preferred against the order of CIT (A). Therefore the view of the ld AO was concurrently accepted with respect to section 44BBB of the Act and partly on applicability of rate of tax on service contracts. In these background the penalty u/s 271

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

249 13.05.2015 2983/DEL- 2015 G 2006-07 422/14-15 27.02.2015 62,587,356 13.05.2015 2984/DEL- 2015 G 2007-08 417/14-15 27.02.2015 52,363,198 13.05.2015 2985/DEL- 2015 G 189,469,803 6. Appeal against penalties levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act for the above additions were successfully represented by the same previous counsel before CIT (Appeals). Departmental appeals against

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

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act as is clear from the reasons indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.” 9. The Revenue has not disputed that the payment was made on account of foreign agency commission. The Assessing Officer made addition by observing as under:- [Assessment Year : 2014-15] 4.1. “The submission of the assessee has been duly considered and placed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. M/S DART INFRABUILD (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9.1 The addition amounting to Rs. 25,07,50,000/- was on account of monies received by the respondent/assessee towards share capital and share premium, which, in turn, had been invested in equity shares of unquoted or unlisted companies, and for according loans and advances. Towards share capital