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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

4 “The language of provisions of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) is plain and clear. As per the Explanation 5 as stood at the relevant time, if at the time of search assets which are not recorded in the books of accounts are found, the assessee is liable to penalty u/s 271 (c) for concealment even

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

4 “The language of provisions of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) is plain and clear. As per the Explanation 5 as stood at the relevant time, if at the time of search assets which are not recorded in the books of accounts are found, the assessee is liable to penalty u/s 271 (c) for concealment even

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

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.

4 Alok Garg that assessee has neither concealed any income nor has furnished any in accurate particulars. 7. Aggrieved with the order of the A.O., the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A), on 31.03.2013 who vide its order Appeal No 289/2012-13 / GZB /182 dated 15.10.2014 (copy enclosed) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the action

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

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 on account of advance

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

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 on account of advance

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

4 of 8 were taxable u/s 44D on gross basis @20% u/s 115A of the Act. Therefore the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and penalty is leviable. Against this the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held that the claim of the assessee has not been accepted because of legal interpretation of provision of statute and resulted

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

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

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

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

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

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

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

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

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

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 and creditworthiness of the creditors

M/S PEARLS INTERCONTINENTAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1996-97 Vs. Dcit, Circle – 14(1), New Delhi M/S. Pearls Intercontinental Ltd., 112-A, Ekta Enclave, New Peera Garhi, New Delhi Pan : Aaacp6925A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Kapoor, Ca Respondent By Mrs. Veena Joshi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21.04.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 22/01/2014 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xvii, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (In Short ‘The Cit-A’), For Assessment Year 1996-97, In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). The Grounds Of Appeal Raised Are As Under: 1. The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 275 Are Not Applicable At All. 2. There Is Neither Concealment Of Income Nor Appellant Has Filed Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Thus The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Are Not Applicable At All. 3. Without Prejudice To Ground That No Penalty Is Leviable, Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Penalty. 4. Bonafide Claim Made, Disallowed In Assessment Proceeding Does Not Attract Penalty At All. 5. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That Appellant Has Not Furnished Any Explanation With Regard To Addition/Disallowance.

u/s 271(l)(c) is clearly leviable in such cases. 4. Explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c) has introduced a deeming provision which makes an assessee liable for penalty in respect of any amount which is added or disallowed, if the explanation offered by the assessee is either false or which he/it is not able to substantiate

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SRF LTD., GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 1995-96 Vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Block-C, Sector - Acit, Circle-9(1), Room No. 163, C.R. Building, New Delhi 45, Gurgaon Pan : Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Satyen Sethi, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 06/03/2012 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 1995-96, In Respect Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Levied By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.3,43,70,911/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Craves To Amend Modify, Alter, Add Or Forego Any Ground Of Appeal At Any Tiem Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

4,44,02,424/-, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that claim of deduction was allowable in view of CIT vs. Assam Oil Company Limited (1985), 154 ITR 647 (Cal.) and CIT Vs. Simpson and Company Limited (1998) 230 ITR 794 (Mad.), however, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relying on the provisions of section 35 DDA, which was inserted

SPIRIT INFRADEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 17, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

4. That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has failed to correctly interpret the facts existing in the case. “ 2. Brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee had earlier filed appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). During the course of the appellate proceedings