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

The appeal is allowed

section 271(1)(c) in\nthe penalty notice dated 28.12.2007 for AY 2005-06 for which the\npenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. On\nsimilar facts, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above cited case\nheld that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case

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)

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 20 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. P. Madhusudhanan 251 ITR 99affirmed the decision of the Kerala High Court. The Kerala High Court observed as follows: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted where, in the course of any proceedings under

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is being issued separately” After framing the assessment, a notice under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also issued without showing the specific charge/nature of default alleged against the assessee. Consequently, penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s. 271(1)© read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s. 271(1)© read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s. 271(1)© read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s. 271(1)© read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s. 271(1)© read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does not specify which limb of section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

penalty is bad in law and void ab initio since in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

penalty is bad in law and void ab initio since in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

penalty is bad in law and void ab initio since in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271