AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1) (c) observing that the assessee had declared the additional income only because of initiation of search proceedings. We observed that the Assessing Officer has found the credit and debit entries in the bank statement submitted by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no link to the material found during the search. Therefore

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1) (c) observing that the assessee had declared the additional income only because of initiation of search proceedings. We observed that the Assessing Officer has found the credit and debit entries in the bank statement submitted by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no link to the material found during the search. Therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

section 271(1 )(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 10. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 4 | P a g e The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the onus

ASIA SUGAR INDS.P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

251 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus, invalid and void abinitio. He thereafter submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) ordering for initiation of penalty under section 271AAA is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 275 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, void abinitio. He submitted that as per the provisions of Section

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

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

section (a) in an appeal against an order of 251(1)(a) (which is assessment, he may confirm, reduce, relevant in respect of enhance or annul the assessment; appeals against an ………………… assessment order). (b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or Therefore, the CIT(A) does cancel such order or vary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

section 276C.” 4.7. Thereafter, the AO relied upon various case laws in support of the proposition that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is civil liability and for attracting such civil liability, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient as is case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. The AO also observed that had the case

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

251(l)(b) of the Act. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is in excess of the power vested with him while disposing off the appeal against the levy of penalty. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in confirming 8. the penalty levied u/s 271C of the Act without appreciating that the proceedings initiated and penalty

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

251(l)(b) of the Act. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is in excess of the power vested with him while disposing off the appeal against the levy of penalty. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in confirming 8. the penalty levied u/s 271C of the Act without appreciating that the proceedings initiated and penalty

M/S. H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The grounds

M/S H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The grounds

RAJESH J AEREN,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Rajesh J Aeren, Vs. Acit, Aerens Estate, Central Circle 18 Mall Road, New Delhi. Kishan Garh, D-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070 Pan Aahpg0479N (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(C) & 271AAA of the Income Tax Act. ” Appeal No. 7128/Del/19 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- “1. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has not followed the law and natural justice while confirming penalty by the Ld. AO. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts by confirming

SH. RAJESH J AEREN,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Rajesh J Aeren, Vs. Acit, Aerens Estate, Central Circle 18 Mall Road, New Delhi. Kishan Garh, D-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070 Pan Aahpg0479N (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(C) & 271AAA of the Income Tax Act. ” Appeal No. 7128/Del/19 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- “1. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has not followed the law and natural justice while confirming penalty by the Ld. AO. 2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts by confirming

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help