SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAMLI

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

50C of the Act. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the actual sales consideration received by the assessee is at variance with 2 the sale consideration declared by the assessee in the return of income. Since, the addition has been made by AO invoking deeming section, penalty u/s. 271(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. DIVINE IFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 50C on the basis of deemed sale consideration being higher than the sale value, in the absence of any iota of evidence that assessee has received more amount than that shown by it, penalty u/s 271(1

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

penalty proceedings u/s 271. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688/[1990] 53 Taxman 85 held as under:- "5. In CIT v Kanpur Coal Syndicate, a three Judge bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

271 (SC), it was held that where there is failure or inability of authorities to frame a regular assessment after earlier assessment is set aside or nullified, tax deposited by an assessee by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, or tax deducted at source is not liable to be refunded to assessee, since its retention by revenue would

VIKAS SINGHAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

271(1)(c) of the Act by AO ignoring the show cause reply as well as the bona-fide disclosure made by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the assessee did not seek protection under Section 50C

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

50C of IT Act, is misplaced and untenable as, for business transactions also, on the date of sale/transfer of business asset, being land of any other asset, the fair market value has to be adopted to compute the profits and gains of assessee. Here also, being a real estate developer, the appellant has transferred the pieces of land

UNITECH RESIDENTIAL RESORTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

50C of IT Act, is misplaced and untenable as, for business transactions also, on the date of sale/transfer of business asset, being land of any other asset, the fair market value has to be adopted to compute the profits and gains of assessee. Here also, being a real estate developer, the appellant has transferred the pieces of land

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

271 AAB of the Act of amounting to Rs.1,64,03,339/-. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, tile Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the facts that the penalty u/s 271AAB of amounting to Rs. 1,64,03,339/- levying on based on incriminating material found during the course

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

50C but subject to the assurance that interest and penalty shall not be levied. However, in the assessment order itself interest u/s 234A amounting to Rs.7,026/- and u/s 234B Rs.96,022/- totaling to Rs. 1,03,048/- has been imposed. The assessee has never been personally present before the A.O. during the length of assessment proceedings. 6. Because further

KRISHNA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

1.T. Act, 1961 by making an of Rs.69,73,749/- to the income of the assessee as income from sale of property u/s 50C of I. T. Act., 1961. Since, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271

H B EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 4 The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 9. Before the appellate proceedings could start, the PCIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and served the following notice: “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALLAN EXTN., DELHI vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

penalty can be drawn." However, as has been noted in Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 247 amendments were incorporated by Finance Act, 1964, into section 271 which had deleted the word "deliberately" in its sub-section 1(c), thereby shifting the onus of proof onto the assessee, rendering Anwar Ali‟s case (supra) ineffectual. Nevertheless

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed for the Asst Year

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

penalty can be drawn." However, as has been noted in Addl. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 247 amendments were incorporated by Finance Act, 1964, into section 271 which had deleted the word "deliberately" in its sub-section 1(c), thereby shifting the onus of proof onto the assessee, rendering Anwar Ali‟s case (supra) ineffectual. Nevertheless

SUNIL KUMAR,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

sections is also wrongly worked out. 11. That the Assessing Officer and NFAC has erred in issuing the notice U/s 271(1)(c) and initiating the penalty proceedings ) when the assessee appellant has not concealed the particular of any income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify

MADHAV RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-61(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Madhav Rastogi, Vs Ito, 2, Sreeniketan Apartments, 24, Ward-61(2), Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110096. Pan-Ahopr9376D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022

penalty proceedings u/s 271(b) for not attending his office and required me to attend his office on August 24, 2017. This show cause notice itself was dispatched on August 22, 2017 and received by me on the evening of August 23, 2017. 9. I attended the office of the AO on August 24, 2017 and provided him copies

RAJESH,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the same. Thus, the impugned order has not merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was bad in law. 2. Initiation of proceedings u/s 148 was completely on erroneous facts, without application of mind, so the same should be decided as void ab initio. 3. That the failure to invoke the provisions of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act for determining the accurate market value