VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section

SOREGAM SA ,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section

SOREGAM SA,BELGIUM vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATIONTAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid and bad in law for the reason that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without assigning specific charge, the exact limb of section

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

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

u/s 270A dated 16.06.2023 imposing penalty of Rs.19,21,517/-. 5. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. At this stage, we deem it necessary to reproduce the statutory provisions of section 270A of the Act “270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or 94[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal

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 provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were equivalently replaced by provisions of Section 270A of the Act, the said judgement delivered by Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of The DCIT , Central Circle 2

ATEPL RAHEE JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

270A or] section 271 or section 271 BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction,- (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES

2) or Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-Section (9) of Section 270 of the Act, as per the said notice, apparently the penalty was intended for 'under reported income'. But the order of the penalty passed u/s 270A of the Act by the A.O levying penalty for 'mis-reporting of income’. The various High Courts and Benches

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section even in the Assessment Order. The Assessment Order reads as under: "Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately by issue of statutory notice." 12. A perusal of the aforementioned notice u/s 270A clearly shows that the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings, whether for mis-reporting or under-reporting

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section even in the Assessment Order. The Assessment Order reads as under: "Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately by issue of statutory notice." 12. A perusal of the aforementioned notice u/s 270A clearly shows that the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings, whether for mis-reporting or under-reporting

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section even in the Assessment Order. The Assessment Order reads as under: "Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately by issue of statutory notice." 12. A perusal of the aforementioned notice u/s 270A clearly shows that the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings, whether for mis-reporting or under-reporting

DCIT, DELHI vs. AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section even in the Assessment Order. The Assessment Order reads as under: "Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately by issue of statutory notice." 12. A perusal of the aforementioned notice u/s 270A clearly shows that the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings, whether for mis-reporting or under-reporting

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

2. The Ld. PCIT has grossly erred under Law in reviving Penalty Proceedings u/s 271AAC under umbrella of Section 263 which otherwise has become time barred under Income Tax Act.” Dhankot Filling Station 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a partnership firm, running petrol pump under the name