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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 292B comes to the rescue of the revenue which cures minor defect in the various notices issued provided such notice in substance and effect was in conformity with the intent and purpose of the act. On overall facts and circumstances, we find that such condition was fulfilled in the instant case. We find that the revenue's Special Leave

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned

DEFSYS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

271 of the Act." (Emphasis Supplied) 18. In the case on hand, though it is claimed by the Revenue that order dated December 28, 2018 was a draft assessment order, we may record that the ACIT has directed issuance of demand notice and also initiated penalty proceedings. As in Vijay Television Case, the said order along with demand notice

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

271 AAB, penalty of Rs.3,18,00,375/- was imposed.\n9. Against assessment order dated 13.5.2016 and penalty orders dated\n25.11.2016, appellant/assessee preferred separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nwhich were dismissed vide separate orders dated 30.12.2016, 05.05.2017 and\n28.04.2017.\n10. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee has preferred above captioned three\nappeals.\n11. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee

CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

271 AAB, penalty of Rs.3,18,00,375/- was imposed.\n9. Against assessment order dated 13.5.2016 and penalty orders dated\n25.11.2016, appellant/assessee preferred separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nwhich were dismissed vide separate orders dated 30.12.2016, 05.05.2017 and\n28.04.2017.\n10. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee has preferred above captioned three\nappeals.\n11. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, with the above directions, the appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S[A.Y. 2011-12]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as invalid since the show cause notice and the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer are in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act and hence the infirmity, if any in these are taken care of by the provisions of section 292B

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

271 AAB, penalty of Rs.3,18,00,375/- was imposed.\n\n9. Against assessment order dated 13.5.2016 and penalty orders dated\n25.11.2016, appellant/assessee preferred separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nwhich were dismissed vide separate orders dated 30.12.2016, 05.05.2017 and\n28.04.2017.\n\n10. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee has preferred above captioned three\nappeals.\n\n11. Learned Authorised Representative

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Penalty Order order dated under section 17.03.2020 271(1)(c) w.r.s 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2352 & 2353/Del/2024 2 Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 2. To begin with, we shall first take up ITA No.2352/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.2352/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 3. As per the grounds

MONTREAUX RESORTS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Penalty Order order dated under section 17.03.2020 271(1)(c) w.r.s 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2352 & 2353/Del/2024 2 Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO A.Y. 2007-08 2. To begin with, we shall first take up ITA No.2352/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No.2352/Del/2024 Assessment Year 2007-08 : 3. As per the grounds

SHYAM PRODUCTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without any material on record.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal is raised challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment. The ld. Counsel submits that an identical ground has been decided

OPTIMIST ELECTRONICS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) without any material on record.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that ground No. 1 of the grounds of appeal is raised challenging the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer in re-opening the assessment. The ld. Counsel submits that an identical ground has been decided

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

SATYAVEER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

penalty order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. Primarily the learned AR raised argument on the basis that the assessee Charan Singh

SATYAVEER SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

penalty order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. Primarily the learned AR raised argument on the basis that the assessee Charan Singh

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

292B of the Act. The Assessing Officer even though recording that no return had been filed and no notice under section 143(2) had been issued, continued to proceed as if he was making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the order made under section 153A/ 143(3) is not legally tenable and ought to have