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 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected." 7. DCIT Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai - Trib.) where Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows

SATPAL SAINI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

u/s 271(1)(c) are void ab initio, contrary to facts of the case, bad in law, and as such proceedings initiated may kindly be dropped on these facts itself.” 10. Thus, from the perusal of above, it is clear that in the case before us the AO made a serious lapse in not fixing the charge clearly while assuming

M/S VEE GEE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

section 271(1)(c) having been fulfilled by assessee, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed. 19. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah reported in 299 ITR 305, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the assessee

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

section 271 are mentioned would not specify the requirement of law, the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the Principles of Natural Justice are offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Taking up the penalty proceeding on one limb and finding the assessee guilty on another

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

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. PAN-CAVPS9753D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009- 10 is directed against the order

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

penalty was rightly levied upon the assessee u/s 271 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. For the reasons explained hereafter the Court is of the view that the above question requires to be reframed. Background facts 4. The background facts require to be narrated. The Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of soft drinks

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said addition. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “…….1. At the outset it is submitted that there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order with regard to levy of penalty under section 271

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said addition. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “…….1. At the outset it is submitted that there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order with regard to levy of penalty under section 271

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said addition. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “…….1. At the outset it is submitted that there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order with regard to levy of penalty under section 271

ACCURATE TRANSFORMERS LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said addition. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: “…….1. At the outset it is submitted that there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order with regard to levy of penalty under section 271

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

ASHOKA MACHINE TOOLS INTL. PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -3(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

282 Taxman 463 (SC). 3. On the contrary, learned DR opposed the submissions and submitted that the assessee cannot take benefit of procedural irregularity. He further contended that the assessee participated in the proceedings and, therefore, the assessee was well versed with the reason for which the penalty was being imposed. 3 Ashoka Machine Tools Intl

SH. SWAMI SHARAN GARG,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

282 ITR 642 (Gujarat) which was cited before him. 8. That the L'd Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the grounds for initiation of penalty U/S 271(1)( C) were never given to the assessee and a blind reliance was placed on the assessment only for levying penalty as in the impugned proceedings. 9. That

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected.” 7. DCIT Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018| 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai - Trib.) Where Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows

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

section 271(1)(c) is illegal as the printed from without specifically mentioning the proceedings whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty is liable to be deleted. He further submitted that Ld. 6 CIT(A) also erred confirming the penalty by overlooking