PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

260-A of the Income Tax Act, ("the Act") are directed against four separate orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) (“ITAT”) for AY 2005-06 and 2006- 07. The following common question of law was framed for decision by this court: “Did the ITAT correctly interpret Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read

MS. TRIPTA KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Tripta Kaur, Acit, Central Circle- 14, A-29, Friends Colony-East, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

260/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out on Shri Paraminder Sing Kalra, Consortium Securities Pvt. Ltd. and other associated concerns on 28.07.2011. 2 The search was conducted ostensibly on the basis of prior information that Shri Paraminder Singh Kalra is owing foreign accounts abroad containing substantial amount of undisclosed cash. The search at assessee’s premise was also

BAL KISHAN ATAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on vague, frivolous and ambiguous ground. It is prayed that the order being arbitrary, erroneous, unlawful, unjustified and opposed to natural justice must be quashed.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment order framed under section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WASHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

271-E of the Act, a sum equal to repayment of loan. In view of above, it is requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

271-E of the Act, a sum equal to repayment of loan. In view of above, it is requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well

M/S. SUDHIR TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 153C of the Act, Assessing Officer (AO) making disallowance of Rs.45,16,261/- out of which addition to the tune of Rs.2,57,569/- on account of unpaid Central Sales-tax, low payment of ESI and on account of late payment of Karnataka Sales-tax was confirmed, initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining

SMT. TRIPAT KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishismt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner Of Income New Delhi Tax Pan: Aaapk8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

260/- making an addition of unexplained stock of Rs. 15,96,224/- over and above disclosure of ₹ 3 crores in the return of income. Penalty notices u/s 271AAA of the Act was issued to the assessee as she has disclosed a sum of ₹ 3 crores voluntarily during the course of search and offered the same as income in her return

M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

section 274 of act and order passed u/s 271 (1) ( c ) of act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is stated that levy of penalty is illegal, unjust and not in accordance with law. It has further raised as a ground that addition made by learned assessing officer is based on difference of opinion because

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c). 2 I.T.A. No.2412/DEL/2011  Firstly, on the ground of disallowance towards cost of raising of loan, amounting to Rs.9,34,93,091/- treated as Deferred Revenue expenditure; and  Secondly; disallowance of provision of Non-performing assets amounting to Rs.73,46,160/-. 2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the quantum

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue has no force and the same is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh

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

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

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

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

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

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. M/S MUTHOOT FINANCIERS,NEW DELHI.

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, in short) even though pertains to the different assessees, involve a singular substantial question of law are being decided by this common order. 2. The substantial question of law as framed in these appeals is as under: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on fact

M/S RAJ HANS TOWERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it can be seen that the notice did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) has been taken into account while passing penalty order. In fact, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of concealment of income to the extent of Rs.63,33,260

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-14,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) & Punjab National Bank Vs. Dcit Ho Accounts & Taxation Circle - 14(1) Deptt. New Delhi Ho : 5-Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan No. Aaacp 0165 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/10/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

260/- being the profit on sale of Securities (HTM Category) as not taxable under the head of Business but had offered it to tax under the head of Long Term Capital Gains. AO noted that the assessee is a bank and one of the business activities undertaken by it was purchase and sale on various kinds of securities. He noted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. PLATINUM TOWERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed." 36. The Id. DR had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adinath Builders Pvt Ltd [supra

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VERVE ENGINEERING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who deleted the penalty, mainly on the ground that the issue was clearly debatable and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levy of the penalty. The findings of the learned CIT(A) are reproduced as under: 2.2 I have considered