SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle by the ld. DR. Keeping in view, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and during the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), addition of Rs.20,41,64,000/- on account of disallowance of business expenses has been deleted whereas the remaining additions have been confirmed. AO issued notice dated 16.01.2015 calling upon the assessee as to why penalty under section 271(1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

254 ITR 630, CIT vs. Manila I Tarachand (Gujarat H.C.) in which the Hon'bie High Court has held that where there is a dispute merely regarding year of taxability of an income, penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271 (1 )(c) of I.T. Act on the ground of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 323 ITR 641, Jayant

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act (that too on protective basis in the case of Sanjay Dalmia). This means that the AO has ignored the alleged default committed earlier and the information desired by the said notice did not have any bearing on the information relied in the assessment made. It was held

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

u/s. 143(2) dated 11.12.2013 that the assessee filed the revised computation of book profit. In this context, it is significant to note that the AO issued questionnaire which does not contain even a whisper on this issue. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the assessee filed revised computation only when the ambiguity was pointed

MANOJ MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 254 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer making an addition of Rs.4,73,526/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, no case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be made out. ACIT vs. Global Associates (Del.)(Trib.) ITA No. 4819/Del./2012 dt. 28.06.2013 "Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and u/s 14A of the Act: Both these disallowances made by the AO are legal disallowances. No inaccurate particulars were filed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

254, assessing the total income of the Petitioner at Rs.4,63,94,561, after making revised transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

254, assessing the total income of the Petitioner at Rs.4,63,94,561, after making revised transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

254, assessing the total income of the Petitioner at Rs.4,63,94,561, after making revised transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1

ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaanand Kumar Bansal Vs Dcit 145, Bank Enclave, Central Circle Ii Lakshmi Nagar, Faridabad. Delhi. Aajpb0552D

254,925/- on this amount also. 2.4 Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that although there was no dispute that the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee has failed to demonstrate how exactly the undisclosed income was derived

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

254/-, which comes to Rs. 37,06,420/-. Since, the assessee has already shown net profit of Rs. 61,950/- in the return filed on 14.09.2021, therefore, remaining amount which comes at Rs. 36,44,470/- Since, the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated separately for concealment

GAURAV GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1 )(c) has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1) to section 271(l)(c) w.e.f 01.04.1976. Explanation (1) to section 271(1 )(c) raises a presumption that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which

MITSUI PRIME ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c). It is simple and plain that both the assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct from each other. If the contention of the ld. DR that the acceptance of addition or confirmation of addition in quantum proceedings would automatically justify imposition of penalty is taken to a logical conclusion, then, there was no need to have separate