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

36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee for wrongly claiming speculative loss of Rs.2,33,69,140/- as business loss. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and reversed

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

36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee for wrongly claiming speculative loss of Rs.2,33,69,140/- as business loss. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and reversed

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

36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee for wrongly claiming speculative loss of Rs.2,33,69,140/- as business loss. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and reversed

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

36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee for wrongly claiming speculative loss of Rs.2,33,69,140/- as business loss. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and reversed

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

36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee for wrongly claiming speculative loss of Rs.2,33,69,140/- as business loss. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and reversed

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

36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee for wrongly claiming speculative loss of Rs.2,33,69,140/- as business loss. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and reversed

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

36. As per its grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) towards deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed on the assessee for wrongly claiming speculative loss of Rs.2,33,69,140/- as business loss. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee and reversed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under: “ 36. As assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under: “ 36. As assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty u/s

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

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

penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,59,950/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid quantum additions of Rs.6,36,50,000/- and Rs.33,50,000/-. The assessee filed appeals against aforesaid order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the AO u/s

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

penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,59,950/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid quantum additions of Rs.6,36,50,000/- and Rs.33,50,000/-. The assessee filed appeals against aforesaid order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the AO u/s

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

penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,59,950/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid quantum additions of Rs.6,36,50,000/- and Rs.33,50,000/-. The assessee filed appeals against aforesaid order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the AO u/s

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

penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,59,950/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid quantum additions of Rs.6,36,50,000/- and Rs.33,50,000/-. The assessee filed appeals against aforesaid order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the AO u/s

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

36, page 128 of this order the Hon'ble Court has observed as follows. "A bare reading of section 271(l)(c) would show that to initiate penalty proceedings following pre-requisites should obtain. (i) The Assessing Officer should be satisfied that:- a) The assessee has either concealed particulars of his income; or b) furnished inaccurate particulars of his income

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

36,44,470/- Since, the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income. Further, penalty u/s 271B of the I.T. Act is hereby initiated for non-maintenance of accounts and get audited.” (emphasis supplied) 3.2 The AO, thereafter, issued penalty notice dated

ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

penalty of Rs 29,40,760/- imposed u/s 271 (1)(c) is upheld in the instant case and the appellant gets a relief of Rs 1,12,950/-. Ground No. 2 is partly allowed. 7.4 Ground No. 1 & 3 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 8. In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal. No. 506/17-18

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14,NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 271(1)(c) the penalty is being initiated. In the penalty proceedings, Page 2 of 9 [A.Y. 2012-13] Meena Gupta the Assessing Officer, being not impressed with the explanation of the assessee levied penalty on the said disallowance. The AO however, while levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act mentioned that it is for “concealment