SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

u/s 271(1)(b) are examined in detail. 12. The provisions of Section 273B reads as under: "273B. Penalty not to be imposed in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

u/s 148 of the Act, she duly filed her income tax return and disclosed all her income. 10. In our considered view, the levy of penalty is not automatic. If the assessee makes out a case that the default was due to reasonable cause in that case, no penalty would be called for in terms of section 273B

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]

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H section 271-1, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub- section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

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

u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee derives income from real estate business. On 11.12.2008, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee. Notice under Section 153A

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B

LATE JITENDER SAPRA (THROUGH WIFE ANJALI SAPRA),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 50(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

U/s 142(1) 08.02.2016 15.02.2016 AR filed a letter seeking adjournment and case is adjourned to 19.02.2016. 14. Adjournment 19.02.2016 No compliance was made 4. The Revenue argued that notices so issued by the Department were not complied by the assessee, Sh. Jitender Sapra or the Authorized Representative or by the legal heir Smt. Anjali Sapra on 29.12.2015 onwards

MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7087/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, Mds, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0828R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. M. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2022

u/s 92E of the Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO holding that as per the mandate of Section 92E, the assessee was to obtain audit report and file it before the due date for filing the return and since, the assessee defaulted the penalty was rightly levied. 6. Heard the arguments of both

NARESH CHAND RANA,SONEPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 2, SONEPAT

In the result, the assessee gets relief of Rs

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

271 (B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not correct.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of data collection and running the business in the name of NCR Research Group. The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 28.11.2011 in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income

PRABHAT KUMAR RASTOGI ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD- 1(2)(1), MEERUT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Prabhat Kumar Rastogi Vs. Income Tax Officer 76,Holi Mohalla, Near Ward1(2) (1) Meerut Saraffa, Bazar Meerut City Uttar Pradesh250002 Pan No. Acfpr6257D (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 B without judicially considering reply of the assessee apprising that assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) is set aside for fresh adjudication. Penalty u/s 271B is initiated on the basis of order passed u/s 144 which is no more effective. Therefore penalty u/s 271B is wrongly confirmed by Honourable CIT(Appeal) and needs to be deleted

ATIQ AHMED,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

271(1)(c) penalty appeal that the learned Assessing Officer had re-estimated his net profits @ 0.7% and therefore, going by CIT vs. Reliance 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 3673, 3674 and 3677 to 3679/Del/2024 Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), I delete the impugned penalty levied against the appellant and allow his case ITA No. 3673/Del/2024

ATIQ AHMED,HAPUR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) penalty appeal that the learned Assessing Officer had re-estimated his net profits @ 0.7% and therefore, going by CIT vs. Reliance 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 3673, 3674 and 3677 to 3679/Del/2024 Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), I delete the impugned penalty levied against the appellant and allow his case ITA No. 3673/Del/2024

ATIQ AHMED,HAPUR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) penalty appeal that the learned Assessing Officer had re-estimated his net profits @ 0.7% and therefore, going by CIT vs. Reliance 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 3673, 3674 and 3677 to 3679/Del/2024 Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), I delete the impugned penalty levied against the appellant and allow his case ITA No. 3673/Del/2024