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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also enclosed” 15.2 In the absence of nature of default discernible from the directions of AO at the time of framing the assessment order, consequent penalty proceedings itself is unsustainable in law. In parity with ITA no. 2631/D/2019 and 939/D/2019 supra, the entire penalty proceedings is void

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

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

section 35D was claimed relating to public issue of shares. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that assessee had not concealed income. ITAT upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Hon'bie HC held the case would attract penalty u/s 271

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of I.T. Act]; and CIT vs. Mastek Ltd. (2015) 53 taxman.com 142 (Guj.)[in which it was held that no penalty is to be levied to wrong claim of deduction u/s 10A if there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars]. The reliance placed by the Ld. DR in the case

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

penalty u/s 271(1) is clearly leviable. 4.4 Further, explanation 1 to section 271(l)(c) of the Act mentions that where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under the Act, such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (C) of the income tax act, 1961 by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, central circle – 20, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per order dated 28/3/2013 of INR 9507003/–. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6476/Del/2013:- “1. That the learned

M/S MINDMILL SOFTWARE LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 240A in respect of rent of inferior fittings and deduction claimed u/s 35D while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271

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

section 35D was claimed relating to public issue of shares. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that assessee had not concealed income. ITAT upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal, the Hon'ble HC held the case would attract 11 I.T.A.No.2457./Del/2016 penalty u/s 271

YUM! RESTAURANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) ( C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. b. The second issue was that in the income and expenditure account the assessee has debited expenses of INR 4 54992 and claimed the same under section 35D

YUM! RESTAURANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) ( C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. b. The second issue was that in the income and expenditure account the assessee has debited expenses of INR 4 54992 and claimed the same under section 35D

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD.

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act?” Since counsel for the parties were ready to argue the matter finally, we heard the arguments on the aforesaid issue there and then. 7. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law for invoking provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, particularly Explanation (I) thereof. This Section with the Explanation

DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 4753 & 4754/Del/2017 (For Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit Vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 10(1) Su-217, Pitampura New Delhi New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccg 0954 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2021 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Learned Dr Submitted That The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Year

35D of the Act. On the aforesaid addition, the AO initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereafter vide order dated 23.03.2016 levied the penalty of Rs.2,91,31,443/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who vide order dated

YUM! RESTAURANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh.Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Yum Restaurant Ito Marketing Private Limited Vs Ward – 27 (4) 12Th, Tower D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Mg Road, Gurgaon-122002 Pan No. Aaacy1884D (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 (1) (C) of the act holding assessee to have committed the default of concealment but in the show cause notice and satisfaction is recorded for furnishing of inaccurate particulars, cannot be saddled with the penalty. Accordingly, we delete the penalty on this addition. 12. The second issue of the penalty related to the disallowance of claim of the assessee