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)(b

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) is a beneficiary of any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India, shall furnish, on or before the due date, a return in respect of his income or loss for the previous year in such form and verified in such manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed

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)’].

249/-. Thus borrowed funds constitute around 81% of total funds with the assessee company. Capital Work-in-progress of Rs.10,49,53,354/- is reflected as on 31.03.2014. Similarly, Capital Work-in-progress of Rs.23,23,94,224/- is reflected as on 31.03.2015. Thus, on average there is capital work-in progress of Rs.15

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