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

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- 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 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

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

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

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

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

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

iii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. It is further provided that no penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in this section. It is also provided that

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

iii) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income. It is further provided that no penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be levied or imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in this section. It is also provided that

M/S. C.S. DATAMATION RESEARCH SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

36,979/- being 100% of the tax sought to be 2 evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty so levied by the AO. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT,(A) and now the Housing and Urban Development Corporation

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT,(A) and now the Housing and Urban Development Corporation

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT,(A) and now the Housing and Urban Development Corporation