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

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

276C. Assessment and penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. Every’ addition in assessment order does not automatically qualify for levy of penalty. It is settled position that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate, and distinct and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharaman Veerasinghaiah

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

276C of the Income-tax Act." 4.10 The Hon'bie Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v/s Mak Data Ltd., ITA No.415/2012, order dated: 22.01.2013 held that even the surrender of income without explanation attracts penalty. In the case of Mak Data Ltd. (supra), a survey u/s 133A was conducted on the assessee’s premises in the course

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

276C of the Income-tax Act." 4.10 The Hon'bie Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v/s Mak Data Ltd., ITA No.415/2012, order dated: 22.01.2013 held that even the surrender of income without explanation attracts penalty. In the case of Mak Data Ltd. (supra), a survey u/s 133A was conducted on the assessee’s premises in the course

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

276C of the Income-tax Act." 4.10 The Hon'bie Delhi High Court, in the case of CIT v/s Mak Data Ltd., ITA No.415/2012, order dated: 22.01.2013 held that even the surrender of income without explanation attracts penalty. In the case of Mak Data Ltd. (supra), a survey u/s 133A was conducted on the assessee’s premises in the course

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

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

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

MANU BALI,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act on the amount added for which inaccurate particulars has been furnished. In view of the above, he stated that entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law and in order to support his contention, he placed the reliance on the following decisions:- - Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision

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

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

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