DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 19. I find that while imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO did not categorically mention the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act though he mentioned that the explanation offered by the assessee was not found acceptable. Thus

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

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

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

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- 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

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 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

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

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

Section 271AAA of the Act, i.e., assessee was not able to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.” 36. Those facts are distinguishable from the facts in present case

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

Section 271AAA of the Act, i.e., assessee was not able to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.” 36. Those facts are distinguishable from the facts in present case

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

36,93,709/- offered by the assessee in his return of income filed u/s 153A while ignoring the facts, written submissions and evidences placed on record and rejecting the bonafide explanation of the assessee for non- imposition of the penalty. Thus, the penalty so levied should be cancelled.” I.T.A. No. 8171/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 1. The CIT(A) erred

AKSHAY GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

36,93,709/- offered by the assessee in his return of income filed u/s 153A while ignoring the facts, written submissions and evidences placed on record and rejecting the bonafide explanation of the assessee for non- imposition of the penalty. Thus, the penalty so levied should be cancelled.” I.T.A. No. 8171/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 1. The CIT(A) erred