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

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. RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Ground 8: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in proposing to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. DRP's Findings: This ground is of consequential nature. Penalty proceedings are separate proceedings. Therefore, the objection

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

2. Brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal, are that the Assessing officer vide assessment order dated 30.12.2011 though made various additions, however, initiated the penalty on the following additions: (i) Addition of Rs. 7,14,361/- made on account of disallowance in respect of exempt income u/s 14A of the Act; (ii) Addition

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’).

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice penalty order passed vide order dated 21.03.2022 wherein penalty was levied on an amount of Rs.10,38,01,232/- for declaring inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that in quantum

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

40A(2)(b). 24. At point 25-31, the assessee company has furnished details of opening/closing stock, sales, purchases, imports & exports. At point 32 & 33, details regarding the expenses have been furnished. At point 34. preliminary expenses claimed during the year under the assessment is Rs. 4.800/- claimed as per the provisions of section 35D. At point

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(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground

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(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground

JAYSON INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

JAYSON INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

JAYSON INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-63(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

M/S. JAYSON INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

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

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

2) That the disallowance of Rs.61,39,71,805/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by CIT (Appeals) u/s 40A(3) of the Act on account of non-genuineness of purchases, while accepting the sales as genuine, is arbitrary, based on presumptions and assumptions and bad in law. 3) That meat, which is an animal product, the payments related

ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, are initiated .separately.” 40. During the appellate proceedings, the above said addition made by the A.O. has been confirmed by the CIT(A) in following manners:- “6.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, appellant has submitted that as per appellant's internal company policy, during the year the appellant reimburses