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

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

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

SS GROUP (P) LTD,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRLCE-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Ss Group (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), Ss House, Plot No.77, Sector 44, Gurgaon. Sector 45, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aadcr8945B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Affirming The Penalty Order Dated 21.03.2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

40A(3) of the Act and had also bonafidely believed the same as not covered under the said section. 15. The assessee we hold ,cannot be charged with having concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to impose penalty u/s 271

M/S. HIND INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediam/S. Hind Industries Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of A-1, Okhla Industrial Area, Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach0870N Assessee By : None Revenue By: Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023

u/s 142(1) was asked to explain as to why cash purchases not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 40A(3) as was the treatment given to such cash purchases in AY 2004-05 to 2009-10. M/s. Hind Industries Ltd 4.3 In this regard the assessee in its reply stated that its case was covered by Rule

NEETU GUPTA,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GURGAON

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Sudhir Pareek

271(1)(b) of the Act, the Ld. AO in the course of any proceedings under this Act, if satisfied that any person has failed to comply with a notice U/s 142(1) or 143(2) of the Act, may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure

PRIYAMDA MEDIA & INFOTAINMENT P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act on the additions made in the assessment order. 3. Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of News Network, broadcasting

PRIYAMDA MEDIA & INFOTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act on the additions made in the assessment order. 3. Both these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of News Network, broadcasting

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Del/2016 filed by the assessee are allowed, accordingly the Assessment Orders dated 28

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A

ATUL KUMAR ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. b] Investment in the shares of M/s Orion Freight Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: AAAC07310C:- The company has share premium of Rs.3.86 Crs which were invested in unquoted govt. securities. Shares were allotted to dubious entities at premium of Rs.90/- per share. In A,Y. 2010-11, share of the company were

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -28, NEW DELHI vs. ATUL KUMAR GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. b] Investment in the shares of M/s Orion Freight Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: AAAC07310C:- The company has share premium of Rs.3.86 Crs which were invested in unquoted govt. securities. Shares were allotted to dubious entities at premium of Rs.90/- per share. In A,Y. 2010-11, share of the company were

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. b] Investment in the shares of M/s Orion Freight Solutions Pvt. Ltd.: AAAC07310C:- The company has share premium of Rs.3.86 Crs which were invested in unquoted govt. securities. Shares were allotted to dubious entities at premium of Rs.90/- per share. In A,Y. 2010-11, share of the company were