M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 263 of the Act, without any independent application of mind and without considering that the penalty proceedings are separate and independent from assessment proceedings, the said penalty order is bad in law. It was, therefore, submitted that upholding by the CIT(A) of the validity of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

u/s 271 (1 )(c) of I.T.Act: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 22 [(2007) 295 ITR 244] (CopyEnclosed) Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

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

u/s 271 (l)(c) is being initiated separately.” Thereafter, the AO passed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by imposing penalty amounting to `1,34,640/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on the concealed income of `4 Lakhs. 3. The assessees preferred revisions under Section

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

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

u/s 271 (l)(c) is being initiated separately.” Thereafter, the AO passed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by imposing penalty amounting to `1,34,640/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on the concealed income of `4 Lakhs. 3. The assessees preferred revisions under Section

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

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

u/s 271 (l)(c) is being initiated separately.” Thereafter, the AO passed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by imposing penalty amounting to `1,34,640/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on the concealed income of `4 Lakhs. 3. The assessees preferred revisions under Section

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27I(I)(t) on such income in all the three years are held justified. Accordingly, the penalties imposed in all the three years are sustained.” 4. The assessee is agitated with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed copy of the order of the Tribunal for assessment years

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27I(I)(t) on such income in all the three years are held justified. Accordingly, the penalties imposed in all the three years are sustained.” 4. The assessee is agitated with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed copy of the order of the Tribunal for assessment years

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27I(I)(t) on such income in all the three years are held justified. Accordingly, the penalties imposed in all the three years are sustained.” 4. The assessee is agitated with the above finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee filed copy of the order of the Tribunal for assessment years

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 269T of the I. T. Act were violated and therefore the penalty provisions u/s 271E of the Act were clearly attracted. Consequently, the AO’s action of not initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings, has resulted in passing of an erroneous assessment order

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

penalty or fine has been incurred by the assessee. At point 37, no payment by way of commission or brokerage has been made during the year. At point 38, details regarding the expenses on which TDS is required to be deducted has been provided. At point 39, details regarding foreign transactions have been provided. At point 40, it is submitted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act contains twin limbs of section 271(1) ( C) of the act. Therefore, the penalty levied is void ab initio. 27. Coming to the appeal of the AO, ld DR submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ritu Singh

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act contains twin limbs of section 271(1) ( C) of the act. Therefore, the penalty levied is void ab initio. 27. Coming to the appeal of the AO, ld DR submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ritu Singh

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act that the Ld. Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 6 263 of the Act and issued show cause notice to the assessee to which the assessee gave written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. Pr. CIT in para 2.3 of his order dated 5.3.2021 under section 263

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act that the Ld. Pr. CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act and issued a show cause notice on 03.1.2020 to which the assessee furnished written submission dated 11.02.2020, the gist of which the Ld. Pr. CIT has incorporated in his order in para 3.1 thereof

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)2 vs. DELHI GURGAON SUPER CONNECTIVITY LTD. & ANR.

The appeal is allowed in favour of the

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

271(1)(b) of the Act was passed on 01.09.2016, by way of which a penalty of ₹10,000/- was imposed on the assessee. Accordingly, a Notice of Demand of ₹10,000/-, under Section 156 of Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:22.05.2025 18:12:31 Signature Not Verified ITA 424/2022 Page 3 of 35 the Act, was issued

RADHIKA SURGICAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit C-30, Panchsheel Enclave, Central Circle – 6, New Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aadcr 5053 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By Shri Farhad Khan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

u/s 274 Read with Section 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed is either for filing of inaccurate particular of income or concealment of particular of income and as such the notice is not sustainable and not curable. 6. It is well settled that