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

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

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

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

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

271(1)(c) read with the Explanation indicates that the section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution under section 276C.” While imposition penalty u/s

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJEDEV SINGH & CO.

The appeal stands dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be upheld. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the penalty.? . The said passage has been adequately dealt with by the tribunal and given acceptance. In this regard, we may profitably refer to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein the Apex Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

section 276C.” 4.7. Thereafter, the AO relied upon various case laws in support of the proposition that penalty u/s 271(1

VIVAAN INFOTEL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

271(1)(c) read with the Explanation indicates that the section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution under section 276C. While imposition penalty u/s

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

276C of the Income Tax Act.” 16. Thus, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is imposed when an assessee conceals his income or furnishes incorrect particulars. In 2013:DHC:4611-DB ITA No. 71/2013 Page 14 of 21 terms of explanation I, we have to examine whether the case in question falls within the two limbs viz. clause

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence