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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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 36(l)(iii): In a recent judgement in case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Ludhiana [(2015) 63 taxmann.com 308 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again authoritatively upheld the primary right of any businessman/ organization to plan and conduct his/ its business, thereby effectively negating any attempts on the part of revenue

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) or U/s 271AAA for either A.Y. 2011-12 or A.Y. 2012-13 because no income was recognized in accordance with Project Completion Method of accounting and no tax was payable. Thus, he submitted that assessee, NHPL and NDPL, were not liable for penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act. He also relied on decisions reported in the following

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) or U/s 271AAA for either A.Y. 2011-12 or A.Y. 2012-13 because no income was recognized in accordance with Project Completion Method of accounting and no tax was payable. Thus, he submitted that assessee, NHPL and NDPL, were not liable for penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act. He also relied on decisions reported in the following

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) or U/s 271AAA for either A.Y. 2011-12 or A.Y. 2012-13 because no income was recognized in accordance with Project Completion Method of accounting and no tax was payable. Thus, he submitted that assessee, NHPL and NDPL, were not liable for penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act. He also relied on decisions reported in the following

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) or U/s 271AAA for either A.Y. 2011-12 or A.Y. 2012-13 because no income was recognized in accordance with Project Completion Method of accounting and no tax was payable. Thus, he submitted that assessee, NHPL and NDPL, were not liable for penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act. He also relied on decisions reported in the following

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) or U/s 271AAA for either A.Y. 2011-12 or A.Y. 2012-13 because no income was recognized in accordance with Project Completion Method of accounting and no tax was payable. Thus, he submitted that assessee, NHPL and NDPL, were not liable for penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act. He also relied on decisions reported in the following

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

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

271(l)(c) of Income Tax Act were also initiated for asstt. year 2005-06 by the Ld. AO. For asstt. year 2006-07 also, the assessee revised the original return and filed the revised return u/s 139(5) o f I. T. Act on 31.10.2007 withdrawing the deduction claimed u/s 801B amounting to Rs. 45,16,523/-. Though

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 6. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard both authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The challenge of the assessee against the levy

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty was levied in respect of addition u/s 115JB of I.T. Act. The relevant portions of the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 26.09.2008 and the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2012 U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, on Section 115JB of I.T. Act, are reproduced as under: Relevant portions of Assessment order dated 26.09.2008 “Taxability u/s 115JB Vide order sheet entry

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

section 94(7) of the Act on account of dividend striping and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and also imposed the penalty of Rs. 45,52,613/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vide order dated 23.2.2018 passed u/s. 271

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27IE of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.2,06,82,566/- u/s.271E of the Act for violation of provisions of sec.269T. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals) and Ld. AO, this appeal has been preferred to get justice. 3 ITA No. 1370 & 1371/Del./2019 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee