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)

1)(c) having been innate without proper application of mind or issuance of valid show cause notice u/s 274 and same being illegal and void-ab-inito, there is no justification for assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. (iv) That the Id. CIT has grossly erred in directing the assessing officer to re-decide the penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(a) of the Act, against the assessed for the assessment year 1970- 71?" 2. In so far as this court is concerned the issue raised is no longer res integra. The scope of powers of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act came up for consideration before this court in Addl Commissioner of Income

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

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, on the issue of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Explanation 5A which had not been initiated by the Assessing Officer during the course

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-12, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1)(c) instead of u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that in proceedings u/s. 263

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-12, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

penalty proceedings under section 271AAB(1)(c) instead of u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ignoring the fact that in proceedings u/s. 263

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271(1)(c) page 14 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263) Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271(1)(c) page 14 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263) Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271(1)(c) page 14 of the order incriminating material. passed u/s 263) Merit The direction on the issue of penalty is beyond the purview of provisions of section

M/S IRCON SOMA TOLLWAY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-4, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as\ninfructuous

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which\nthere was no direction u/s 263.\n5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in\ncharging interest under various section

CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing & All The Above Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other.”

1,68,263/- ) 3.1 For the above reason, I am satisfied that the assessee company has attracted the provisions of section 27l(l)(c) of the Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income, for which penalty proceedings u/s 271

IRCON SOMA TOLLWAY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIALO RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as\ninfructuous

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which\nthere was no direction u/s 263.\n5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in\ncharging interest under various section

M/S IRCON SOMA TOLLWAY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-4, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which there was no direction u/s 263. 5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in charging interest under various section

IRCON SOMA TOLLWAY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIALO RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which there was no direction u/s 263. 5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in charging interest under various section

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LTD. (BEFORE AMALGAMATION M/S ESCORTS HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(3), NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which there was no direction u/s 263. 5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in charging interest under various section

NAKSHATRA METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 18(1), DELHI

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) for which there was no direction u/s 263. 5. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in charging interest under various section

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

263 21[or section 264], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, 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 completed, or six months

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’ for short) in the case of Sh. Ashok Malhotra and the reassessment was subject to revision vide order dated 30/03/2011 u/s 263 of the Act. In pursuance to the order u/s 263 of the Act, the reassessment was completed on 15/12/2011 u/s 253/143(3) of the Act against Sh. Ashok Malhotra