M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 40A(7) of the Act and c) Rs. 5,91,106/-; addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation on computer software 3. Simultaneously, penalty proceeding u/s 271

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DEEPALI DESIGN & EXHIBITS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle-17 Vs. M/S Deepali Designs & Exhibits 9, 1St Floor, Behind Punjab Room No. 103, First Floor, Hall No. 1, Kesri, Wazirpur Industrial Ara Centre, Area, New Delhi – 110 035 E-2, Jhandewalan, (Pan: Aaffd1639M) New Delhi – 110 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Sh. Ridhi Karan Agarwal, Ca

Section 271(l)(c) is leviable. Hence penalty is deleted. 9. As regards ground no.5 where the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) and has made submissions regarding non applicability of the said provisions on the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 40A

CIT vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

Bench: The Authorities Below Was With Regard To Tenability Of The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As „A.O.‟) In Levying A Penalty In The Sum Of Rs 21,34,200/- On The Assessee Under The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „I.T. Act‟). The

section 40A (9) of the act does not lead to the inference that the ITA No. 626/2011 Page 12 of 21 assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars relating to the impugned addition were furnished before the Assessing Officer, Hon’ble Punjab High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ajaib Singh

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. SHRI ALOK GARG, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3386/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs Sh. Alok Garg, Circle-1, R-11/125, Raj Nagar, Gyhaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aarpg7151K Assessee By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Aligarh.

penalty of Rs.14,20,911/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submissions which is incorporated in para 4 of the impugned order and is reproduced verbatim as under: “1. Auditors report, Profit & Loss A/c and Balance Sheet were filed with

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

u/s 40A(3), due to disallowance of the 20% of expenses, it can be seen that this addition has been re-added as a result of re- assessment order dt. 08.03.2000 where the following payments were found to be via cash and (were) in excess of the limit set by section 40A(3). These payments were not specified

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical circumstances observing as under:- “9. Learned Authorised Representative vehemently stated before us that cash payments have been made for purpose of purchase of Silver from MMTC to extent of Rs.24,24,212/- and balance payment of Rs.9,66,500/- is towards reimbursement of travel expenses to employees

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act under identical circumstances observing as under:- “9. Learned Authorised Representative vehemently stated before us that cash payments have been made for purpose of purchase of Silver from MMTC to extent of Rs.24,24,212/- and balance payment of Rs.9,66,500/- is towards reimbursement of travel expenses to employees

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

u/s 35(2)AB. It was submitted that as such there is no requirement in section to restrict additional deduction because of the report of competent authority but assessee suo moto restricted the deduction himself. 4.3. It was also submitted that penal provisions are only applicable if assessee had furnished any inaccurate particulars and in the present case the report

M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

penalty levied by Learned Income Tax Officer, New Delhi [ The ld Ao ] u/s 271 (1) ( c) of The Income Tax Act [ The Act] of INR 5,46,098/–, INR 9,42,692/– and Rs. 25,24,204/– are confirmed. 2. Briefly, facts can be culled out that appellant is a company incorporated under provisions of The Companies

M/S. M & M MACHINE CRAFT (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is attracted to confirm the penalty levied on the assessee company. 19. Ld. AR for the assessee further contended that penalty initiated on the basis of addition of Rs.30,000/- made u/s 40A

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

40A(2)(b) and the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in determining the profit of the assessee @ 3.78% equal to the profit of one of the parties to the JV. Penalty u/s 271G: 11. Facts of the case are as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

40A(2)(b) and the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in determining the profit of the assessee @ 3.78% equal to the profit of one of the parties to the JV. Penalty u/s 271G: 11. Facts of the case are as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into

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

section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes [Paras 8- 10] [In favour of assessee] Though the above judgment, is in respect of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) r.w.S 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the ratio decidendi is equally applicable to the fact of the present case with respect to addition made u/s 40A

SURESH PRASAD AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6031/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income P-8, Green Park Extension, Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapa3267H Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxviii, New Delhi.

penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 10. In the present case also the assessee made a claim of exemption u/s

M/S. GOODLUCK COMMERCIALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishigoodluck Commercials Ltd, Vs. Ito, 211, Basal Plaza, 2122, Ward-12(2), Bhadurgarh Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg4081C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty of Rs. 3,36,600/- u/s 271 (l)(c) of Income Tax Act. 1961 levied by Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(2), Delhi. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi ,erred in not appreciating that disallowance under section 40a

SH. LT. COL. DR. ARVIND KUMAR CHATURVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty so sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is bad in law and may please be deleted. 2 ITA No.6809/Del./2013 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law while confirming the levy & imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act, 1961 on the consultancy

GAUTAM CHADHA L/H MRS. RATNA CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 28(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

40A(2b) of the Act. 2.1 On appeal, the then Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28-03-2013 passed in Assessee’s Appeal 229/2011-12, affirmed the said additions . 3. Consequently the Assessing Officer issued various notices dated 30.12.2011; 12.3.2015 and 2.11.2016 u/s 274 of the Act and ultimately levied the penalty to the tune

ENEFPY FASHIONS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Enefpy Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, F-29, Top Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-8(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadcp5697A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Arora, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th September, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,33,050/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By The Assessing Officer Which Has Been Partially Reduced By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal.

40A(3), disallowance of long-term capital loss, etc. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and levied a penalty of Rs.4,33,050/- on account of addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of long-term capital loss declared