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

The appeal is allowed

274 did not specify the limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the\n10\nITA Nos.9694 & 9695/Del/2019\nAct should not be accepted by the Tribunal because the assessee\nneither raised any objection about the notice before the AO before\npassing the penalty order nor before Ld. CIT(A) and the same was an\nafterthought. He further submitted that even

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)

2-3% of ITRs are picked up for scrutiny. Therefore, the intention to evade tax was there while filing the ITR by concealing particulars ofincome. Even during the penalty proceedings, the assessee did not furnish plausible explanation. During the penalty proceedings, the respondent/assessee submitted that the delay in construction was due to contractor/builder; hence the claim under section

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

section 274 of for the assessment year 2010- 11 -regarding. Please refer to the above mentioned subject. The Hon’ble ITAT vide appellate order ITA No.l42/Del/2017 dated 05.01.2018 has pronounced the order therefore in order to decide the pending penalty proceeding you are hereby given the show cause notice as to why the penalty should not be levied u/s 271

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

2. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the penalty, particularly when the notice issued under section 274 of the Act did not mention the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty was to be imposed. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

2. It is relevant to note here that Ld. AO had initiated penalty proceedings vide issuing notice dated 08.03.2016 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. Copy of such notice is enclosed at PB Pg. 35. 3. However, while issuing such notice, the AO has failed to specify the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is being

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

2. As can be seen, the issue pertains to penalty under Section 271 [1](c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which the Tribunal had deleted. The quantum additions pertain to disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 3. We do not find any evidence of assessee

SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2 3. Briefly stated, the assessee in the instant case filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.83,67,310/- against the returned income of Rs.8,74,590/-. The assessee in her return of income had shown Rs.1,13,90,000/- as receipt / sale consideration on the sale of property at Laxmi Nagar Delhi whereas total sale consideration