THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27IE of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.2,06,82,566/- u/s.271E of the Act for violation of provisions of sec.269T. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) and Ld. AO, this appeal has been preferred to get justice. 3 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the four cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

269 SS which is to the extent of 1.1% (minimum) of the total deposit in Assessment Year 1993-94 and 6.14% (Maximum) of the total deposits in Assessment Year 2001-12. The only contention of the assessee for not levying penalty u/s 271D for this violation is that there was reasonable cause due to which the assessee could not comply

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

269 SS was also initiated by assessing officer at time of completion of said assessment - SCN under section 27ID was issued by prescribed authority on 24-03- 2009 - Further, penalty order was passed on 29-09-2009 - Whether where assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, said date was to be taken as relevant date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

269 SS was also initiated by assessing officer at time of completion of said assessment - SCN under section 27ID was issued by prescribed authority on 24-03- 2009 - Further, penalty order was passed on 29-09-2009 - Whether where assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, said date was to be taken as relevant date

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. M/S MUTHOOT FINANCIERS,NEW DELHI.

penalty u/s 271-D in the cases of several other sister concerns is pending. The appellant cannot claim, after a passage of several years that he was unaware of the provisions of Section 269

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

269 (Del)] (Del HC) d) Glorious Realty (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (29 SOT 292) (Mumbai ITAT) III) Penalty cannot be initiated merely for the reason that additions have been made in quantum proceedings as Penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from such proceedings and therefore imposition of penalty is not mandatory/ automatic. Case laws relied upon by the assessee

M/S. SHREE BALAJI AGRO INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Balaji Agro Industries, Vs. Acit, Circle-20(1), New 5586, 1St Floor, Lahori Gate, Delhi Naya Bazar, Delhi Pan : Aadfs0803N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Kunal Bhatia, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.08.2016 Order

u/s 271(1)(c) can be initiated only in case of concealment of income or inaccurate particulars furnished for income whereas in this case there is no concealment of income and disallowances made cannot be taken as concealment of income. Therefore, the contention of Learned Assistant Commissioner is not sustainable and hence, the penalty imposed is wrong in the eyes

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. 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,, 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

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

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),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

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

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