JAGDISH PRASAD BHARAT KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

27l(l)(c) without appreciating assessee ’s contention that: i) Firstly addition made by Ld AO in quantum proceedings u/s 68 of the Act is itself incorrect and made in grave violation to principle of natural justice as no case specific incriminating material is brought on records at any stage so as to draw adverse inference u/s 68 in wake

JAGDISH PRASAD AVDESH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

27l(l)(c) without appreciating assessee ’s contention that: i) Firstly addition made by Ld AO in quantum proceedings u/s 68 of the Act is itself incorrect and made in grave violation to principle of natural justice as no case specific incriminating material is brought on records at any stage so as to draw adverse inference u/s 68 in wake

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 271(1 )(c) of the I.T. Act. The scheme of sec. 271(1 )(c) visualizes imposition of penalty when the assessee has concealed income or when the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. (A) The expression „concealment of income‟ has not been defined in the Act, but the natural meaning of the expression „concealment‟ is „to keep from

M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2000-01 Yum ! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 12Th Floor, Tower D, Ward-27(4), Global Business Park, New Delhi. Mg Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacy1883E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company In Restaurant Business. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th December, 2000 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.99,81,920/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 8Th May, 2001. Subsequently, On The Basis Of The Report Of The Special Auditor, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3)/147 On 29Th December, 2006 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,54,61,031/-. However, After Allowing Carried Forward Business Loss & Depreciation Of Earlier Years, The Total Income Was Determined At Nil. The Assessee

27l(l)(c) of the Act are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.” Ground 10: “That the levy of penalty is illegal, unjust and not in accordance with law as the mandatory requirements of Section 271(l)(c) have not been met in the instant case. ” 3 Ground 11: “That the said additions made by the AO are based

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. VIRTUAL SOFTWARE AND TRAINING PVT. LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act". Thus, no specific charge is specified either in the assessment order or in the penalty notices. On these facts, the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) would be squarely applicable. The above decision has been followed by ITAT, Delhi Benches

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and held that the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income and has also furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of 100 percent of the tax which works out to Rs. 10,49,995/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before

DEHRADUN PUBLIC SCHOOL,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ITA No. 1387/del/2016 for assessment year 2011 – 12 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (1) (c) and order imposing penalty at Rs.51,70,422.00 under said section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction. 2. That, the Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the penalty notice and initiating the proceedings U/s 27l

SHRI SANJAY MITTRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) has been initiated. From the notice elated 30.06.20J3 produced, by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officerv was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue has no force and the same is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh

YORK SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

u/s 271(1)© has been adduced. In fact the explanation 1 to section 271(1)© is also not found to be giving any relief to the assessee for accepting the addition of the income. It is not the case of the assessee that it has a bonafide explanation for the said receipt of Rs.10 lakhs not offered for taxation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 43B is not applicable as the loan is sanctioned by the Government of India. Therefore, his argument that there was prima facie two opinion at the time of filing return of income and it is not a case of ex-facie bogus claim of deduction appears to be convincing. In view of the above and considering entire facts

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-4,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 04,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section