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

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

u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. He brought\nto our notice Form 35 filed by the assessee, wherein in Column No.8,\nassessee has clearly indicated that assessee had filed its return of income and\npaid the self-assessment tax of Rs.10,05,536/-. Therefore, the case of the\nassessee will not fall under section 249(4

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. He brought\n\nto our notice Form 35 filed by the assessee, wherein in Column No.8,\nassessee has clearly indicated that assessee had filed its return of income and\npaid the self-assessment tax of Rs.10,05,536/-. Therefore, the case of the\nassessee will not fall under section 249(4

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

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

Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

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

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

249(4) of the Act, the appeal would not be maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. It is not in dispute that the Debtors / Customers had not paid the monies due to the assessee company against the invoices raised on them. First of all, the assessee had booked the sales income based on the invoices raised

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

249(4) of the Act, the appeal would not be maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. It is not in dispute that the Debtors / Customers had not paid the monies due to the assessee company against the invoices raised on them. First of all, the assessee had booked the sales income based on the invoices raised

AISHANI CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and u/s 271F for non filing of ITR. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 7. After consideration of the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee u/s 249(4)(b) holding

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

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/- with the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with the observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s 142(1) and served the same via email

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

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

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 preceding A.Y 2014-15 submitted that the facts of the present A.Y are similar to those of A.Y 2014-15 and the case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

MD METRO TRANSIT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Us Vide Ita No.1581/Del/2020

penalty amounting to Rs.21,12,981/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid order dated 28/06/2017 was also dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine vide impugned appellate order dated 22/02/2029 without going into the merits; observing that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the Page

MD METRO TRANSIT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Us Vide Ita No.1581/Del/2020

penalty amounting to Rs.21,12,981/- under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid order dated 28/06/2017 was also dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limine vide impugned appellate order dated 22/02/2029 without going into the merits; observing that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the Page

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

271 (SC), it was held that where there is failure or inability of authorities to frame a regular assessment after earlier assessment is set aside or nullified, tax deposited by an assessee by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, or tax deducted at source is not liable to be refunded to assessee, since its retention by revenue would

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

4. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, engaged in business to develop, establish, construct and maintain a project relating to the construction, operation and maintenance of the New Mangalore Port Road connectivity project under the Build-Operate-Transfer (‘BOT’), filed its Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 24.11.2015 declaring loss

SHISH PALI,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NOIDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short ‘the Act’). ITA No.3399 & 3400/Del/2019 AY: 2009-10 2. The assessee has raised the following additional ground: 1. That the CIT(A)-1, Noida, has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the assessment as the notice u/s148 has not been served on the assessee