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

5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disputed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that assessee is only a broker and does not require any hedging. On this point of difference, the loss has been reclassified from business to speculative loss. Thus, the loss arising on transaction of trading has not been disputed per se but the character

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

5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disputed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that assessee is only a broker and does not require any hedging. On this point of difference, the loss has been reclassified from business to speculative loss. Thus, the loss arising on transaction of trading has not been disputed per se but the character

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

5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disputed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that assessee is only a broker and does not require any hedging. On this point of difference, the loss has been reclassified from business to speculative loss. Thus, the loss arising on transaction of trading has not been disputed per se but the character

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

5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disputed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that assessee is only a broker and does not require any hedging. On this point of difference, the loss has been reclassified from business to speculative loss. Thus, the loss arising on transaction of trading has not been disputed per se but the character

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

5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disputed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that assessee is only a broker and does not require any hedging. On this point of difference, the loss has been reclassified from business to speculative loss. Thus, the loss arising on transaction of trading has not been disputed per se but the character

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

5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disputed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that assessee is only a broker and does not require any hedging. On this point of difference, the loss has been reclassified from business to speculative loss. Thus, the loss arising on transaction of trading has not been disputed per se but the character

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

5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disputed the claim of the Assessee on the ground that assessee is only a broker and does not require any hedging. On this point of difference, the loss has been reclassified from business to speculative loss. Thus, the loss arising on transaction of trading has not been disputed per se but the character

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

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

5(1) Mumbai, ITA no.803/Mum/2014 for A.Y.2009-10, date of pronouncement 02/03/2016. Copy of order is enclosed. “16. In the present case the AO in the course of assessment proceedings had not recorded any satisfaction while initiating penalty the penalty proceedings, therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable. In the present case, this contention

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

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

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

5 | P a g e b) proper satisfaction not recorded by the assessing officer in the assessment order for initiation of penalty proceedings; c) Quantum & penalty proceedings independent d) Bonafide claim- No penalty leviable Re (a): Proper notice not issued 2.2. In the present case, it is submitted that the penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer vide notice

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

45,130 2,56,89,743 11,55,387 NIL 2006-07 3,64,15,637 3,44,56,419 19,59,218 NIL On perusal of section 115JB it is abundantly clear that deduction u/s 80IB(10) is not allowed to be reduced from book profit for computation of tax u/s 115JB and assessee was liable

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) would also be for concealing income in that particular assessment year, which concealment was revealed by the discovery of certain assets in the assessee’s possession during the search conducted under Section 132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) would also be for concealing income in that particular assessment year, which concealment was revealed by the discovery of certain assets in the assessee’s possession during the search conducted under Section 132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income