UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

253. 5. Per contra, Ms. Monika Singh representing the department vehemently defended the penalty order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 6. Both sides heard. The short issue in present appeal is with respect to validity of notice dated 31.10.2017 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for levy of penalty. The said notice is reproduced here

UNITECH HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

253. 5. Per contra, Ms. Monika Singh representing the department vehemently defended the penalty order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 6. Both sides heard. The short issue in present appeal is with respect to validity of notice dated 31.10.2017 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for levy of penalty. The said notice is reproduced here

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

section 271(1)(c) are clearly not attracted in this case. In view thereof, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.60,11,830/- is deleted. The grounds of appeal are ruled in favour of the appellant.” 9. From the above finding of Ld.CIT(A), it is evident that at the time of filing

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

253 (P & H) The Id. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raised by the Id. A.R during the course of hearing of the appeal as regards the validity of the 15 | P a g e jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty 271

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

253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitted by the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this

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

253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitted by the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In this

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

253) wherein the Hon'ble Court has answered the issue of reference as follows: - Answers: Question No. 1: If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere defect in the notice—not striking off the irrelevant matter—vitiate the penalty proceedings

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

253 (P&H) The ld. DR relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submitted that as per the settled position of law, the objection raised by the Id. A.R during the course of hearing of the appeal as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty 271 (1 )(c) was not admissible and thus no cognizance

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed19, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the 20[***] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief

VATIKA HOTELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1763/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, बनाम 621A, Devika Towers, Central Circle : 8, Vs. 6 – Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aabci2522B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

2. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had been initiated on the ground, that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, as such since, as the notice issued was vague and mechanical, no penalty could have been

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

2. That the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) initiating the penalty proceeding is bad-in-law as it did not specify as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceeding had been initiated .e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradcit, Central Circle- M/S. Thapar Homes 15 Limited, B-10, Vs Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 Pan No:Aaecm0840R (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. On the facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the order u/s 271E was barred by limitation without appreciating that the order was passed within 6 months of initiation of proceeding by Addl. CIT, who was the competent authority to levy this penalty”. 3. Brief facts of the case are that

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

2. The assessment was framed by DCIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar for Asst. Year 2010-11 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 28/03/2013. The impugned penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by ACIT, Circle 5(1), New Delhi vide order dated 29/09/2019

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI vs. MOHD. SHAHNAWAZ, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 9051/Del/2019 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 9260/Del/2019 (A.Y 2010-11)

271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: “No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A