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)

36 (AT)(Chd.), has taken the same view that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be invoked for the first time by the Tribunal. Thus, it is held that the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly attracted here. 20. A very heavy onus was placed on the respondent/assessee

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

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

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

III, Gurgaon [‘CIT(A)’ in short], dated 26.02.2018 and 30.11.2018 arising from the various penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. All the captioned appeals have been heard together

HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Haldia Code & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, No.18/3, Sigapi Achi Building, Circle-11(1), 4Th Floor, Rukmini Lakshmipathi Road, New Delhi. Egmore, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 004. Pan: Aabch5389P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2023 Order

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated accordingly.” 5. Thereafter, without prejudice to the above, AO proceeded to ask the assessee to justify the interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii). In this regard, the AO noted as under :- “ The assessee has made borrowings during the year and has incurred a sizable interest cost. The assessee had taken loan from

HALDIA COKE AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 11, NEW DELHI

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated accordingly.” 5. Thereafter, without prejudice to the above, AO proceeded to ask the assessee to justify the interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii). In this regard, the AO noted as under :- “ The assessee has made borrowings during the year and has incurred a sizable interest cost. The assessee had taken loan from

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

271/- being foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee on payment of foreign exchange to BHEL as per contract for acquisition of capital asset from abroad treating the same as capital expenditure ignoring the provisions of section 37 as well as section 43AA of the Income Tax Act r/w ICDs-VI issued u/s 145(2) of the Act. 08. That

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

u/s 271(1)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said HC decision had not considered the provisions of sec.292B, also notes that

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant operative paragraphs of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted hereunder:- “5.1 I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the AR of the appellant. At the outset, the contentions of the AR in stating that the order levying penalty is liable to be set aside

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

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

iii) The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of his appeal.” 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee had e-filed its return of income on 30.11.2016, declaring total income of INR 14,22,64,180/-. The case

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

section 36(1)(va) iii) Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) 5,12,200/- iv) Bogus creditors 12,97,079/- v) Surrender on account of unverifiable creditors 100,00,000/- 4. On the aforesaid additions, penalty proceedings u/s 271