HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,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

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

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

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

viii. He submitted that whole process was for the benefit of the assessee. Name of the assessee has cropped up in information received from a foreign country and therefore it was necessary to clear the name of the assessee whether such information is correct or not. In this whole process of the Income tax Department, assessee was not supporting / cooperating

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 7. Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) amounting to Rs.10,08,20,653/- was disallowed and assessee’s claim of set off to 7 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 the tune of Rs.1,50,45,32,696/- on account of security transactions of 1991-92 from

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 7. Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) amounting to Rs.10,08,20,653/- was disallowed and assessee’s claim of set off to 7 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 the tune of Rs.1,50,45,32,696/- on account of security transactions of 1991-92 from

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 7. Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) amounting to Rs.10,08,20,653/- was disallowed and assessee’s claim of set off to 7 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 the tune of Rs.1,50,45,32,696/- on account of security transactions of 1991-92 from

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 7. Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) amounting to Rs.10,08,20,653/- was disallowed and assessee’s claim of set off to 7 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 the tune of Rs.1,50,45,32,696/- on account of security transactions of 1991-92 from

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 7. Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) amounting to Rs.10,08,20,653/- was disallowed and assessee’s claim of set off to 7 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 the tune of Rs.1,50,45,32,696/- on account of security transactions of 1991-92 from

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. 7. Assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) amounting to Rs.10,08,20,653/- was disallowed and assessee’s claim of set off to 7 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 the tune of Rs.1,50,45,32,696/- on account of security transactions of 1991-92 from

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim amounting to Rs. 35,04,28,356/- under section 36(l)(viii) of the Income-tax Act on the alleged contention that (a) The role of the appellant as per the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 was merely to operate as a principal agency in order

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