BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Authorized

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or subsection (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred

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-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

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

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

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 from

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

264) ITR 249 (Del). In that case, it was held that when surrender of the asset has been made on the date of search and when such surrender falls within the explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty was bound to be cancelled. 2012:DHC:7381-DB ITA 170/2012 Page 4 5. The assessee argued

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 7. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return : Rs.4.485/- Add: (i) Claim of loss : Rs.1,01.33.791/ disallowed as discussed above (ii) Unexplained bank : Rs.9,86,97,514/- deposits as discussed above Total TOTAL Rs.10

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 7. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return : Rs.4.485/- Add: (i) Claim of loss : Rs.1,01.33.791/ disallowed as discussed above (ii) Unexplained bank : Rs.9,86,97,514/- deposits as discussed above Total TOTAL Rs.10

SUNIL DANDRAYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

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 from

SUNIL DANDRIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

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 from

ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(2), NEW DELHI vs. ESAOTE ASIA PACIFIC DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

264/- against the returned income of Rs.(-)54,72,199/- after making the following additions:- i. Addition of Rs.2,61,49,913/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment related to purchase of finished goods; ii. Addition of Rs.9,16,965/- on account of interest income. 4. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned