A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

3 of the assessment order has admitted that the disclosure made under Section 132(4) of Rs.65 lakh was duly included in the return of income and assessed without any demur. The Assessing Officer however observed that without search, such disclosure would not have come and therefore, he is satisfied that assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 08.03.2016 u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the additions made in the assessment 3

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

3. REVENUE'S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS A. NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC CHARGE MENTIONING IN PENALTY NOTICE 3.1 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2012] 209 Taxman 56 has categorically held that the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) need not explicitly mention the specific reason for initiation of penalty

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

3. REVENUE'S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS A. NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC CHARGE MENTIONING IN PENALTY NOTICE 3.1 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2012] 209 Taxman 56 has categorically held that the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) need not explicitly mention the specific reason for initiation of penalty

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

3. Penalty/ Fines paid 1,64,000 Expenses on account of default in 4. 6,95,65,300 deduction 5. Donation paid 2,50,00,000 6. Share issue expenses 2,500 Total Additions 16,79,34,800 [[1.4 Along with the assessment order dated 21 March 2014, penalty notice dated 22 March 2014 was issued under Section 271

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

3. Thus, it is seen that the AO had indicated that he had initiated\npenalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nand for suppressing its taxable income but had not mentioned the\nspecific limb of section 271(1)(c) in the respective penalty notices for\nwhich the penalty proceedings u/s

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

271(1)(c) for which penalty was to be imposed. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty in respect of addition of Rs.3,67,43,966/- (Share application Rs.1,50,00,000/- and unsecured loan Rs.2,17,43,966/-) under section 68 particularly

UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing Officer initiated penalty, issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271

UNITECH HOSPITALITY SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing Officer initiated penalty, issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271

UNITECH HI-TECH DEVELOPERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.2909/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8460-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2912/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Acacia Services Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-9453-H बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 आअसं.2913/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2013-14) Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd., Basement, 6, Community Centre, Saket, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacu-8064-B बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), R.No. 193, Cr Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 (Ays 2011-12 & 2013-14)

3) of the Act would show that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income. Whereas, the penalty has been levied by the AO vide order dated 26.04.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars. 8. The manner in which the Assessing Officer initiated penalty, issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 271

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) cannot be imposed by mere application of explanation thereof in the absence of any evidence to conclude a positive finding that there was concealment of income. 3. Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 85 (P&H): Provisions of section

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 271 (c) of the act due to some technical disperiances, 1961; As assessee notice that they filed an appeal in wrong Section; Assessee Company immediately filed an appeal in Correct Section which is 271 (1) (c) of the Act, 1961. 3. CIT (A) -26 confirmed the Penalty