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

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section 1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

272A. 4.3 Thus, in the facts of present case there was a information the appellant is engaged in suspected tax evasion by transferring or keeping funds overseas in an illicit manner. The appellant is suspected of having opened and maintained undisclosed bank account overseas and was required to sign the "consent form" to verify the allegation. It is the duty

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(k) of I.T. Act, 1961 are being issued separately for each & every such default for all the years involved.” 13. Thus, the Assessing Officer, during the course of passing of order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A), directed for issue of penalty notice u/s 271C. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated by the direction of the Assessing Officer

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:

K. Sinha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-43 and ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 25.07.2018 and 22.03.2019. 2. In ITA No. 6722/Del/ 2018, following grounds have been raised

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:

K. Sinha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-43 and ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 25.07.2018 and 22.03.2019. 2. In ITA No. 6722/Del/ 2018, following grounds have been raised

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to be taken as the relevant date as far as the section

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

K. Sabharwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi dated 03.08.2018. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

272A(2)(k) of the Act, thereby, penalizing the assesseee for non-deduction of TDS and for failure to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within time prescribed in sub Section 3 of Section 200 or the proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 206 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the penalty order

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

271(1)(a)cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

271(1)(a)cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

271(1)(a)cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

271(1)(a)cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section