M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271(1)(c) of the Act but the reason for initiation of penalty proceedings was not clear. Based on this the taxpayer did not respond to the penalty notice and tax officer levied a penalty of 100 percent of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the taxpayer challenged the validity of the penalty order before the Commissioner

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

271(1)(c) of the Act but the reason for initiation of penalty proceedings was not clear. Based on this the taxpayer did not respond to the penalty notice and tax officer levied a penalty of 100 percent of the tax amount. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the taxpayer challenged the validity of the penalty order before the Commissioner

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

penalty proceedings are confirmed.” [Para 7] 8. Minor defects in the notice need to be ignored u/s 292B Under the provisions of section 292B no notice issued under the Income Tax Act shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice if such notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

penalty proceedings are confirmed.” [Para 7] 8. Minor defects in the notice need to be ignored u/s 292B Under the provisions of section 292B no notice issued under the Income Tax Act shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice if such notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

penalty proceedings are confirmed.” [Para 7] 8. Minor defects in the notice need to be ignored u/s 292B Under the provisions of section 292B no notice issued under the Income Tax Act shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice if such notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

penalty proceedings are confirmed.” [Para 7] 8. Minor defects in the notice need to be ignored u/s 292B Under the provisions of section 292B no notice issued under the Income Tax Act shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice if such notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

penalty proceedings are confirmed.” [Para 7] 8. Minor defects in the notice need to be ignored u/s 292B Under the provisions of section 292B no notice issued under the Income Tax Act shall be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice if such notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent

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

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

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 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

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1998-99

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as invalid since the show cause notice and the penalty order passed by the AO are in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence the infirmity, if any, in these are taken care of by the provisions of Section 292B

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

SH. RAVI KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 1998-99

u/s 271(1)(c).” The AO was 10 further directed: “to verify the revised list of creditors furnished during penalty proceedings and if some of the creditors had brought forward balance from earlier year, then, no penalty should be levied.” Despite this clear-cut direction by the Tribunal, the assessee remained adamant before the AO in not producing any documentary

SMT. MADHU,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 271 (1)( c)" is clearly mentioned. Further, the approval is given to impose penalty 'of Rs. 3,00,930/- which happens to be the same amount which has been imposed as penalty by the AO. Thus, it is clear that mention of section 271A is a typographical mistake. In view of section 292B

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

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest