HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of IT Act. The penalty has been levied in respect of disallowances of Rs. 13,97,08,721/- and Rs. 15,07,658/- U/s 40A(i)(a) of IT Act, totaling Rs. 14,12,16,379/-. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order dated 23.03.2016, before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated

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

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

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

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

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

2. There is no direction to As demonstrated above, during the initiate penalty course of e the assessment proceedings, proceedings in the the AO had e, satisfaction that appellant assessment order, had concealed ) some very vital therefore, provisions of transactions relating to of issue and section 271(18) would not transfer of the shares and had not come come

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

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

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

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. K.L. CONCAST PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

u/s 271(1)(c) dated 24.02.2014 was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer passed penalty order by imposing the penalty of Rs. 49,03,000/- by holing that the assessee furnished concealed income or inaccurate particulars of income on account of commission paid to Directors, interest disallowance as per the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b

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

40A(3) 67,926/- which were subject matter of Appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but were upheld in the Quantum Appeal. I have gone through the submissions of the Appellant but do not find the same. The appellant has not been able to place a bonafide explanation as required u/s 271 (1 )(c) with respect to above claim. In fact

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-7, Sheela Bhawan, New Delhi. 8, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. Pan: Aaacv6397E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates; & Ms Suman Sapra, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th August, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.47,07,37,143/- Made By The Ao On Account Of ‘Sham Transaction Of Revenue Sharing.’ 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Ground Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

section 40A(2)(b) and are therefore not allowable. xi) The agreement dated 06.09.2004 is a sham agreements in the nature of colorable devices executed with an intention of reducing the tax liability.” 8. However, since MGF Development Ltd. has provided finance towards the cost of construction and had incurred some opportunity cost in terms of loss of 7 interest