ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

KARNAL CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD,KARNAL vs. ACIT CIRCLE, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwalआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6334/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Karnal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd. Acit, Meerut Road, Karnal, Vs. Circle, Haryana. Ff, Ayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Aaffk9357F Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

1)(c) are concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which carry different connotation / meaning. Nonframing of specific charge against the assessee would vitiate the penalty proceedings since the penalty could be levied only for a specific charge. Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income means, when the assessee has not disclosed the particulars correctly or the particulars

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

section of 271(1)(c) is also applicable on the penalties levied u/s 2718 of IT Act. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member A.Yr. : 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar, Vs. Acit, Cc-14, New Delhi 77-78, Rama Royal Residency, Milk Mohsangarh, Siyana Road, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh-203001 (Pan: Abbpk0132H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, the jurisdiction u/s. 271(1)(c) assumed by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and notice u/s. 271(1)(c) so issued by CIT(A) is also not in accordance with law, hence, the same quashed. To support our aforesaid view

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

section 271(1)(c) in the respective penalty notices for\nwhich the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 271(1)(c) in the respective penalty notices for which the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

UNITECH HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, the same is extracted herein below: (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) The ld. AR of the assessee pointed that the AO in notice has not specified the charge section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty

UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, the same is extracted herein below: (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) The ld. AR of the assessee pointed that the AO in notice has not specified the charge section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty

UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, the same is extracted herein below: (AYs 2011-12 & 2013-14) The ld. AR of the assessee pointed that the AO in notice has not specified the charge section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which penalty

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED,WEST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by Assessing Officer by observing as under: “Assessed at net taxable income of Rs. 43,62,34,300/-. Since, tax on book profit is more than tax under normal provision, therefore charge tax at book profit of Rs. 71,57,92,161/-. Charge interest u/s

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

penalty of Rs. 1,45,59,592/- u/s. 271(1)(c) on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the deduction claimed under section