M/S. C.S. DATAMATION RESEARCH SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act the AO has levied the penalty. Since the said show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty order passed u/s 271

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

271 crores Rs. 8,415 crores 6.9. Ld. AR submitted that in case of mixed pool of funds, the correct method to establish source of investment would be to consider the macro fund/ cash flow position during the year and basing on the decisions in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. CIT: 224 ITR 627 (SC), Indian Explosives

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. 17 That the AO has erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the case in not allowing the credit of TDS certificates claimed through the revised return of Rs 3,55,99,213/- and during the course of assessment

VRINDAVAN TUBES LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-16 Vrindavan Tubes Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O Kashyap & Co., Circle-26(2), 114, Citi Centre, New Delhi. B.B. Road, Meerut. Pan: Aaccv2294C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.S. Kashyap, Fca Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.04.2019 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That On Facts & In Law Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)( C) Of The Act Is Not Maintainable. Ld. Ao Has Given Notice Without Specifying Whether There Is Concealment Of Income Or Assessee Has Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Is Void Ab Initio. 2. That On Facts & In Law Imposing The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C ) For Rs. 77,47,664/- Is Totally Wrong, Unjustified & Illegal. The Appellant Had Never Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Concealed Income At Any Stage Of Assessment Proceedings As Well As In Penalty Proceedings. The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Ought To Be Deleted In Full.”

penalty provision of section 271(1)(c). It may be worth pointing out here that since the business of the assessee had already been closed down and there was no chance of revival of its business, the intentions of the assesse to claim higher loss can not be doubted in disallowing expenses u/s 43B

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

u/s 43B of the Act, which the AO denied. 47 5.4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Ld. AR contended that this issue has been decided in earlier years in the assessee’s favour by the Tribunal. He further referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

M/S. SUDHIR TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable. 16. Even, on merits, it is not in dispute that the assessee has disclosed all the deductions claimed u/s 43B

M/S. SUDHIR TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable. 16. Even, on merits, it is not in dispute that the assessee has disclosed all the deductions claimed u/s 43B

M/S. SUDHIR TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable. 16. Even, on merits, it is not in dispute that the assessee has disclosed all the deductions claimed u/s 43B

M/S. SUDHIR TRANSFORMERS LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43B of the Act by the assessee in which penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were not attracted, AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.94,250/- by making following computation :- “Concealed income (773635+240750) : Rs.2,57,569/- Tax sought to be evaded : Rs. 94,252/- Minimum penalty @ 100% : Rs. 94,252/- : Rs.2,82,756/-” Maximum Penalty

SAMAL INFRA PROJECTS P.LTD,GR.NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied merely 2 because of disallowance of certain expenses claimed by the appellant is not further contested. 3. Any other grounds of appeal may be added/amended/deleted at the time of hearing of appeal. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other ground. “ 3. The assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly solitary ground of appeal and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narsimha Charythe Asst Commissioner Of Dlf Ltd Vs. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Dlf Circle – 10 (1) Universal Ltd) New Delhi Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg New Delhi Pan Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act. However, for the reason that the penalty notice does not show any of the twin charges, on which the penalty has been levied by the learned assessing officer, as none of them has been struck off, on this ground, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. ARCOTECH LTD (FORMERLY SKS LTD.)

The appeal is disposed of

Section 43B of the Act. The quantum of amount involved was Rs.4,48,19,194/- 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee and uphold levy of penalty u/s 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SIR SHADI LAL ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

penalty u/s 271 (l )(C), either there should be ex-facie bogus claim of expense, deduction by the assessee or there should prima facie no two different opinion on the issue of addition. In the light of above, I would now examine the facts of the case, whether either of these two criteria is satisfied in respect of three item

RATHI PRAGATI STEEL MANUFACTURING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

section 43B of the Act make the assessee entitled to claim the said deduction. The auditor of the assessee company in his tax audit report issued u/s 44AB of the Act specifically gives a note on the subject matter, which is available in Form 3CD. The said amount was disallowed by the ld. AO without considering the provisions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals of the department stand dismissed whereas the sole appeal of the

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

43B were not applicable and the 4 ITA no. 5624.Del.2011, 3480.Del.2012 ITA NO. 3509, 1347, 6243-46/Del/2013, same were overridden by Section 44 of the Act. The assessee also filed revised computation of income wherein the total income was computed as per Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals of the department stand dismissed whereas the sole appeal of the

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

43B were not applicable and the 4 ITA no. 5624.Del.2011, 3480.Del.2012 ITA NO. 3509, 1347, 6243-46/Del/2013, same were overridden by Section 44 of the Act. The assessee also filed revised computation of income wherein the total income was computed as per Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals of the department stand dismissed whereas the sole appeal of the

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

43B were not applicable and the 4 ITA no. 5624.Del.2011, 3480.Del.2012 ITA NO. 3509, 1347, 6243-46/Del/2013, same were overridden by Section 44 of the Act. The assessee also filed revised computation of income wherein the total income was computed as per Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Appeals of the department stand dismissed whereas the sole appeal of the

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

43B were not applicable and the 4 ITA no. 5624.Del.2011, 3480.Del.2012 ITA NO. 3509, 1347, 6243-46/Del/2013, same were overridden by Section 44 of the Act. The assessee also filed revised computation of income wherein the total income was computed as per Section 44 of the Act read with the First Schedule