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

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 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

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

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 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

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

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 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

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

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 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

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

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 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

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

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 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act. In other words, the Ld. Counsel submits that the AO did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A penalty proceedings

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

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

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

u/s 270A of the Act by the A.O levying penalty for 'mis-reporting of income’. The various High Courts and Benches of the Tribunal repeatedly held that the defective penalty notice issued by the Department without mentioning the proper limbs and details will be fatal to the entire penalty proceeding. 8. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

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(2), Vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu is squarely applicable to the case of assessee since Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

UJALA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NSP PITAMPURA DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c ) of the Act . Since the relief is granted for Ground No. 1 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos. 1849 & 1850/Del/2024 Ujala Credit Co-operative Society Ltd ITA No. 1850/Del/2024 – Asst Year

UJALA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 40(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c ) of the Act . Since the relief is granted for Ground No. 1 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA Nos. 1849 & 1850/Del/2024 Ujala Credit Co-operative Society Ltd ITA No. 1850/Del/2024 – Asst Year

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