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 264

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 264

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1998-99

Section 271(1)(c) and non-application of mind of the AO. 6. Therefore, in the absence of specification of the limb, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be initiated and the penalty notice issued to the assessee dated 08.03.2016 is defective and therefore the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty is correct. B. No penalty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SPL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid treatment of sales tax subsidy as revenue in the hands of the ass .see and we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Off's r to delete the same.” 8. In view of the above penalty is not imposable where the issue is debatable

ADDL/CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ONGC VIDESH LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

264/- and Rs. 1,94,58,972/-; and disallowance of pre-acquisition expenses amounting to Rs. 112,51,25,851/-.) On perusal of the aforesaid order dated 01.12.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A); we also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, in respect

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

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

SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR PARASHAR,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 153A. During the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of certain statutory notices by the assessee and accordingly, show cause notices was issued. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee filed very detail explanation, challenging the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings and explaining

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

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

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

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