DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shows that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived it in the course of any proceedings under the Act. These

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shows that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived it in the course of any proceedings under the Act. These

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shows that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived it in the course of any proceedings under the Act. These

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shows that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived it in the course of any proceedings under the Act. These

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shows that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived it in the course of any proceedings under the Act. These

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shows that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived it in the course of any proceedings under the Act. These

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act shows that satisfaction of the concerned tax authority to the effect that the assessee has either ‘concealed the particulars of income’ or ‘furnished inaccurate particulars of income’ is the condition precedent for levy of penalty and such satisfaction must be arrived it in the course of any proceedings under the Act. These

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271(l)(c), penalty proceedings have been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs SSA Emarald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 in which similar view was taken and departmental

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

44,788/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly barred by limitation inasmuch as the same have

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

44. Facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts o f Assessee's case. In this case, penalty was levied because the Assessee had made an ex facie bogus claim under section 350. On the facts o f this case, it was held that relief available u/s 350 to a Finance Co. is ex facie inadmissible as that

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty proceedings, the judgement was rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Manjunatha cotton and ginning factory (supra) without considering the provisions of Section 292B. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs Sri Durga Enterprises (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 442(kar}, while dealing with the validity of notice u/s 148 r.w.s 292B held that