HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

u/s 271 (1 )(c) of I.T.Act: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 22 [(2007) 295 ITR 244] (CopyEnclosed) Where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under: "It is of significance to note that the conceptual and contextual difference between section 271(l)(c) and section 276C

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under: "It is of significance to note that the conceptual and contextual difference between section 271(l)(c) and section 276C

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

penalty u/s 271(l)(c). The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard are as under: "It is of significance to note that the conceptual and contextual difference between section 271(l)(c) and section 276C

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

276C and penalty under section 271(1)(c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element of deliberate

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT be entitled to claim benefit

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T.Act: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [(2007) 295 ITR 244] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

u/s 115JB only thereafter, he immediately filed the revised computation on 20.12.2013. so this disclosure cannot be taken as voluntarily on the part of assessee. In this regard, the judgement in the following High Court cases on the issue of section 271 (1 )(c) is submitted for your kind consideration: 1. Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - DELHI-2 vs. BECHTEL INDIA LTD

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

271(1)(b), fails to appreciate the independent statutory footing of prosecution under Section 276CC. The Revenue’s contention, that the offence under Section 276CC stands on its own merits and does not get extinguished merely because a penalty for a separate default has been annulled is well-founded in law. Accordingly, the acquittal order passed by the Appellate Court

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 vs. RAJIV GUPTA

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

271(1)(b), fails to appreciate the independent statutory footing of prosecution under Section 276CC. The Revenue’s contention, that the offence under Section 276CC stands on its own merits and does not get extinguished merely because a penalty for a separate default has been annulled is well-founded in law. Accordingly, the acquittal order passed by the Appellate Court

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 vs. RAJIV GUPTA

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

271(1)(b), fails to appreciate the independent statutory footing of prosecution under Section 276CC. The Revenue’s contention, that the offence under Section 276CC stands on its own merits and does not get extinguished merely because a penalty for a separate default has been annulled is well-founded in law. Accordingly, the acquittal order passed by the Appellate Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PHI SEEDS (P) LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty u/s

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty u/s

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under section 276C 2. CIT Vs Atul Mohan Binal (2009) 225 CTR 248 (SC) Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty u/s

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 35D of the Act to a finance company is ex facie inadmissible. In such a case it is difficult to accept the plea that error was bona fide. 4,11 Uon'ble IT AT Delhi in Chadha Sugars (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 18 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi) upheld the penalty levied u/s 27 U.l)(c) where patently disallowable claim

KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

u/s 28 (v), it cannot be said that the assets in question were being used in the business of the assessee. Interest on capital with partnership firm is assessable as business income in the hands of the partner but against such business income, only those expenses can be claimed and allowed, which are incurred for earning the interest income