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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

37. Both the cross-appeals are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 20.10.2014 for AY 2005-06, challenging the levy of penalty' and cancellation of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The AO vide separate order- levied the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act on the addition made in the assessment order

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is of the view that mere acceptance of the disclosure of the assessee did not automatically give immunity from penalty proceeding since element of concealment exist in the disclosure made by the assessee because 21 ITA No.2044 & 2045/Del/2014; if there had been no search, the assessee would not have disclosed

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is of the view that mere acceptance of the disclosure of the assessee did not automatically give immunity from penalty proceeding since element of concealment exist in the disclosure made by the assessee because 21 ITA No.2044 & 2045/Del/2014; if there had been no search, the assessee would not have disclosed

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is of the view that mere acceptance of the disclosure of the assessee did not automatically give immunity from penalty proceeding since element of concealment exist in the disclosure made by the assessee because 21 ITA No.2044 & 2045/Del/2014; if there had been no search, the assessee would not have disclosed

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

section 271(l)(c) of I.T.Act. We also take guidance from the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in MAK Date (P.) Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax-II (2013) 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC). In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of I.T. Act despite offer of surrender

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

37 and 38 of the assessment order). On account of these disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under 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