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

1) of Section 271. The notice under Section 274 was to follow. What was important was that satisfaction had to be arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings and not issuance of notice under Section 274 of the Act. (See D.M. Manasvi (1972) 86 ITR 557 and and S. V. AngidiChettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739. A bare reading

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

282 (Raj). Inaccuracy or wrong furnishing of income would be covered by the said expression. " In the light of what has been stated by the Hon'bie jurisdictional High Court, it can be seen that the furnished particulars in the present case are certainly 'inaccurate'. 2.1 This case is also covered under the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 271

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

1) of Section 271. The notice under Section 274 was to follow. What was important was that satisfaction had to be arrived at during the course of assessment proceedings and not issuance of notice under Section 274 of the Act. (See D.M. Manasvi (1972) 86 ITR 557 and and S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739. A bare reading

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

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

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(1

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(1

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(1

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(1

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

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

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

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

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

M/S ADITYA CHEMICALS LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

section 143(3) dated 26-03-2002 and additions made therein were also illegal, beyond jurisdiction and void ab-initio. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the additions made

SHRI ADITYA MALLA,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): The case of the assessee is squarely covered under general provisions of the section 271(1)(c) as well as mischief of explanation 1 to the section 271(1). 1.1 The assessee had concealed salary income from two employers, claimed excess deduction on account of housing loan, unexplained credit card expenses and had not declared

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147