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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. The relevant facts are that in an order of assessment dated 19.9.2013 u/s 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, the income of the appellant company was determined at Rs. 909,65,19,961/- by making following additions: a) Rs. 81,58,94,102/-; addition on account

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

2, 2nd para viz. “I am satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income.” Further the AO vide his Notice dated 31.12.2007 for initiating the penalty and directed the assessee to appear before him at ---------AM/PM on ---- ----200------ and issued

DE DIAMOND ELECTRIC INDIA PVT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPECIAL RANGE - 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealing true Income by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. 9 ITA No.7167/Del./2019 [Addition of Rs. 3,66,82,337/-]” 6.5 The one of the ground taken by the AO for invoking section

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) i.e. "concealment of particular of income" as well as "furnishing of inaccurate particulars". As penalty proceedings were initiated vide original assessment order dt. 26.03.1999, the AO was well within his limits to impose penalty in respect of the income represented by the said disallowance. 1 Mrs. Neera Radia for retainership 140000 14.08.95 2

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

2. It is on account of the aforesaid disallowance under Section 40A(9) of the I.T. Act and the addition of excess depreciation that the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 3. With this prefatory note, the facts which are required to be noticed in order to adjudicate upon the appeal

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

ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON vs. KEC KIEL JV, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singh(Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer M/S Kec Kiel Jv, 8Th Ward-2(3), Floor, Building No. 9A, Vs Gurgaon Dlf Cyber City Phase-Iii, Gurgaon Revenue / Appellant Assessee/Respondent

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee JV has to be taxed asAOP in respect of excessive payment made to persons specified u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act. On careful consideration, I assess the net income at Rs.45,52,717/- being 4% of gross receipt

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

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

2. Disallowance is merely on payments have been made in contravention of section 40A(3) of The ground that Act. It is relevant to submit that aggregate cash payment of Rs. 24,24,212/- has been made to MMTC which is Government of India undertaking for purchase of silver and as such provisions of section 40A(3) read with Rule

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

2. Disallowance is merely on payments have been made in contravention of section 40A(3) of The ground that Act. It is relevant to submit that aggregate cash payment of Rs. 24,24,212/- has been made to MMTC which is Government of India undertaking for purchase of silver and as such provisions of section 40A(3) read with Rule

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) of the Act. The relevant operative paragraphs of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted hereunder:- “5.1 I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the AR of the appellant. At the outset, the contentions of the AR in stating that the order levying penalty is liable to be set aside

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

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

2. That a loss of Rs.154143/- on sale of derivative was inadvertently not reduced from the income. Therefore, we are revising our Computation of Income at the total taxable income of Rs.1,80,66,649/- i.e. without the deduction of Rs.22,77,910/- u/s 80IB of the Act. You are required to please treat this revised statement of assessable income

CANDOR GURGAON ONE REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITECH REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four items totalling

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

40A(2)(b) of the Act has been carefully considered by us but not found to be acceptable, in view of the fact that such an exercise will be revenue neutral by virtue of the assessee being eligible for deduction u/s 80IAB of the Act in respect of any business disallowances in respect of the above expenses. Similar view

ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), NEW DELHI vs. J. KISHORE EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are initiated separately on this account.” (Addition Rs.3,80,52,350/-) 10. From the above, it is evident that the Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling (“AAR”) in the case of SKF Boilers and Driers Pvt. Ltd (343 ITR 385). However, Ld.CIT

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.

2 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal indexation of Rs.25,353/- + without indexation of Rs.76,144/-. The AO added the said amount to the income of the assessee and also initiated the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee submitted to the AO that Rs.1,01,497/- was added to the income of the assessee as long term capital