SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 04,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-4,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. THAPAR HOMER LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradcit, Central Circle- M/S. Thapar Homes 15 Limited, B-10, Vs Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 Pan No:Aaecm0840R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 275(1)(c) starts with issuance of notice by the AO and not by the JCIT/AddI.CIT. The specific observations of the Hon'ble Court on the issue are reproduced as under:- "Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the AO has no power to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271

RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED),TILAK MARK, DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL RANGE-1, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s 271DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issue is involved in both these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED),TILAG MARG, DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL RANGE-1, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s 271DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issue is involved in both these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

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 D read with Section 269SS and orders of penalty passed u/s 271E read with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. The Department of Revenue has urged identical grounds of Appeal, which reads as under:- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts

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 D read with Section 269SS and orders of penalty passed u/s 271E read with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. The Department of Revenue has urged identical grounds of Appeal, which reads as under:- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts

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 D read with Section 269SS and orders of penalty passed u/s 271E read with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. The Department of Revenue has urged identical grounds of Appeal, which reads as under:- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts

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 D read with Section 269SS and orders of penalty passed u/s 271E read with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. The Department of Revenue has urged identical grounds of Appeal, which reads as under:- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts

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 D read with Section 269SS and orders of penalty passed u/s 271E read with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. The Department of Revenue has urged identical grounds of Appeal, which reads as under:- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts

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 D read with Section 269SS and orders of penalty passed u/s 271E read with Section 269T of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short). 2. The Department of Revenue has urged identical grounds of Appeal, which reads as under:- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269