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

3) of the Act. In such circumstances inadvertent mistake in the service tax return of March 2017 could not ipso facto be a basis to levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 19 20 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN OTHERWISE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY "INACCURATE" PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AS ALL FACTS ARE BROUGHT OR RECORD WHICH HAVE

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

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

3) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, it is apparent that above two judicial precedents has clearly established that addition on account of advance against depreciation cannot be made either at the time of computation of book profit under section 115JB of the I.T. Act or under the normal computation of total income. Apparently, in the case of 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

3) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, it is apparent that above two judicial precedents has clearly established that addition on account of advance against depreciation cannot be made either at the time of computation of book profit under section 115JB of the I.T. Act or under the normal computation of total income. Apparently, in the case of the assessee

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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue has no force and the same is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3378/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Tax, Circle-5(1), Core 1, Scope Complex, 7 New Delhi-110002 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi.

271 G were recommended. 7. The AO however did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs.46,82,26,600/- u/s 271G of the Act by observing as under: 9 MMTC Ltd. “1. The assessee has contended that the TP report had been signed by the Auditors on 16.09.2009 to prove that

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

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

3) and subsequent orders of CIT (A) and ITAT where the quantum of addition has been discussed. We also perused the order of AO levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.36,07,868/-. The main reason given by the AO is that contract awarded to the assessee was not for civil construction, erection and plant and machinery and therefore

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

3. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned penalty orders are bad in law because notices issued u/s 274 in all the three years are vague and mechanical as the irrelevant columns have not been struck off. It was submitted that nowhere has it been clearly spelt out as to under which limb the extant penalty was sought

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

3. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned penalty orders are bad in law because notices issued u/s 274 in all the three years are vague and mechanical as the irrelevant columns have not been struck off. It was submitted that nowhere has it been clearly spelt out as to under which limb the extant penalty was sought

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

3. The Ld. AR submitted that the impugned penalty orders are bad in law because notices issued u/s 274 in all the three years are vague and mechanical as the irrelevant columns have not been struck off. It was submitted that nowhere has it been clearly spelt out as to under which limb the extant penalty was sought

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

3. Sh. Dropadi Sharma Rs. 1.00.000/- 4. Sh. Durgesh Sharma Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Sh.Atvir Sharma Rs. 5,00,000/- 6. Sh. Anil Sharma Rs. 5,00,000/- 7. Sh. Malti Upadhay Rs. 10,00,000/- TOTAL Rs.30,00,000/- During the assessment proceeding the assessee was asked to explain the genuineness of the loan transaction and prove identity

MR. SUSHIL KUMAR TREHAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued. Assessee filed his explanation in the penalty proceedings for the assessment completed u/s 153A for AY 2001-02 to 2007-08. After considering the submissions made by the assessee and by agreeing with the order passed by the AO, the ld. CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, New Delhi, penalty