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

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

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

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

3),\nDelhi.\n(RESPONDENT)\nASSESSEE BY : Shri Pranshu Goel, CA\nShri Aditya Gupta, Advocate\nREVENUE BY: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing : 14.08.2025\nDate of Order : 22.08.2025\nORDER\nITA Nos.901 to 905/DEL/2025\nPER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :\n1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld.\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

3 `.1,01,91,160/-. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These proceedings were completed on 30.06.2008 by levying minimum penalty of `.44,27,692/-. The Assessing officer, in his order, stated that neither in the original return nor in the letter in response to notice under Section 153A, was the income has declared

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

3),\nDelhi.\n(PAN : AAACV6571C)\n(APPELLANT)\n(RESPONDENT)\n\nASSESSEE BY : Shri Pranshu Goel, CA\nShri Aditya Gupta, Advocate\nREVENUE BY: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing : 14.08.2025\nDate of Order : 22.08.2025\nORDER\n\nITA Nos.901 to 905/DEL/2025\nPER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :\n1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld.\nCommissioner

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

3),\nDelhi.\n(RESPONDENT)\n\nASSESSEE BY : Shri Pranshu Goel, CA\nShri Aditya Gupta, Advocate\n\nREVENUE BY: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR\n\nDate of Hearing : 14.08.2025\nDate of Order : 22.08.2025\n\nORDER\n\nITA Nos.901 to 905/DEL/2025\n\nPER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :\n\n1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld.\nCommissioner

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

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

3),\nDelhi.\n(RESPONDENT)\nASSESSEE BY : Shri Pranshu Goel, CA\nShri Aditya Gupta, Advocate\nREVENUE BY: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT DR\nDate of Hearing : 14.08.2025\nDate of Order : 22.08.2025\nORDER\nITA Nos.901 to 905/DEL/2025\nPER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :\n1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld.\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

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

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.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without any material on record.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal is raised challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment. The ld. Counsel submits that an identical ground has been decided

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.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without any material on record.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal is raised challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment. The ld. Counsel submits that an identical ground has been decided

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

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

3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. 4. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee relying upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case for the immediately

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