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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

Section 271(1)(c) and non-application of mind of the AO. 6. Therefore, in the absence of specification of the limb, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be initiated and the penalty notice issued to the assessee dated 08.03.2016 is defective and therefore the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty is correct. B. No penalty

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

32 of 35 ITA No. 224 & Ors. Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi 10. From going through the above notice issued to the assessee on 28.12.2017. we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 27IAAB of the Act. The Id. AO has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

32 of 35 ITA No. 224 & Ors. Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi 10. From going through the above notice issued to the assessee on 28.12.2017. we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 27IAAB of the Act. The Id. AO has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

32 of 35 ITA No. 224 & Ors. Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi 10. From going through the above notice issued to the assessee on 28.12.2017. we find that there is no mention about various conditions provided u/s 27IAAB of the Act. The Id. AO has very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty u/s 271

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

section 264 of the Act as the appellant did not received the books of accounts from the Official Liquidator on revival of the Company. However, the fact of the matter is that there is no information on record that appellant has concealed any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. The estimation has been made simply on the basis

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

KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

271(1) (c) stipulates when penalty under the said Section should be imposed and reads as under:- 2012:DHC:1786-DB ITA 1152/2011 Page 3 of 16 “Explanation 1 : Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, - (A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers

VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Kashyap & Co., Circle-26(2), 114, Citi Centre, New Delhi. B.B. Road, Meerut. Pan: Aaccv2294C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.S. Kashyap, Fca Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & In Law Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)( C) Of The Act Is Not Maintainable. Ld. Ao Has Given Notice Without Specifying Whether There Is Concealment Of Income Or Assessee Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Is Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law Imposing The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C ) For Rs. 77,47,664/- Is Totally Wrong, Unjustified & Illegal. The Appellant Had Never Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Concealed Income At Any Stage Of Assessment Proceedings As Well As In Penalty Proceedings. The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Ought To Be Deleted In Full.”

section 271(1)(c ) for Rs. 77,47,664/- is totally wrong, unjustified and illegal. The appellant had never furnished any inaccurate particulars or concealed income at any stage of assessment proceedings as well as in penalty proceedings. The penalty imposed U/s 271(1)(c) ought to be deleted in full.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

u/s 32(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal has also categorically given a finding that the decision relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance relating to the period prior to the Assessment Year 1988-89 when the Explanation (1) to Section 32(1) was not on the statute. In the course of penalty proceedings

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

section 271(1)(c) i.e. "concealment of particular of income" as well as "furnishing of inaccurate particulars". As penalty proceedings were initiated vide original assessment order dt. 26.03.1999, the AO was well within his limits to impose penalty in respect of the income represented by the said disallowance. 1 Mrs. Neera Radia for retainership

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable