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

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)

5 of appeal assailing penalty on the ground of defective notice. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee placed on record copy of notice dated 31.10.2017 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for AY 2013-14. The ld. AR pointed that in notice, the Assessing Officer (AO) has not clearly specified the charge u/s. 271

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)

5 of appeal assailing penalty on the ground of defective notice. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee placed on record copy of notice dated 31.10.2017 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for AY 2013-14. The ld. AR pointed that in notice, the Assessing Officer (AO) has not clearly specified the charge u/s. 271

UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS 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)

5 of appeal assailing penalty on the ground of defective notice. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee placed on record copy of notice dated 31.10.2017 issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for AY 2013-14. The ld. AR pointed that in notice, the Assessing Officer (AO) has not clearly specified the charge u/s. 271

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

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

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

5. Trimurti Engineering Works Vs ITO T20121 25 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi)/[2012] 138 ITD 189 (Delhi)/[2012] 150 TTJ 195 (Delhi) where Hon’ble ITAT Delhi held that it was apparent from combined reading of notice and assessment order that impugned notice had been issued in respect of concealment of particulars of income. Relevant part of the order is reproduced

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

5. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee via reply dated 15.10.2018 (PB 148-152, relevant page 152) submitted before the Ld.AO that during year under consideration assessee incurred Rs.4.41 crores for running / operation of research & development unit established as per the provision of section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessee has claimed Rs.882.78 lakhs

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

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

253 (Bom) (F; ii) PCIT Vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 432 ITR 84 (Del.); iii) CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar.); & 4. Referring to the above judgments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act did not specify

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

5 Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak Vs. ITo particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question of law in the assessee's case, as it is purely a question of fact. Apart from that, the assessee had at no earlier point of time raised

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)

5 DCIT Vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. penalty notice had been issued on 31.12.2010 requiring the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271E should not be imposed. The period of 6 months to pass the penalty order by the competent authority, in this case JCIT/Addl.CIT was to end on 30.6.2011 as per the provision of section

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

section 271(1)(c) for imposing the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3 2281/Del/2014 & C.O. No. 204.Del.14 M/s Kostub Investment Ltd. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the assessee had filed the objections at a belated stage, therefore, there is an objection by the Registry

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.

5. In the present case also by the direction of the ITAT vide the aforesaid referred to order dt. 17/01/2019, the disallowance was enhanced resulting into enhanced assessment which is not permissible, therefore we modify the said order dt. 17/01/2019 Bright Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT in ITA No. 354/ASR/2014 to this extent that

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

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-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