ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.7,32,79,132/-as mentioned supra.” 7. The submission of the assessee before the Tribunal are as under:- “7. Nowhere in the assessment order, there was any reference or mention about the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54B. However

AMAR SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD-1, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) & 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Notice u/s 148 was issued by ITO, Ward-3, Rewari on 26.3.2014 after recording reasons that the assessee has sold immovable property valued at Rs.5,96,62,500/- on 11.02.2013. In response to the query letter dated 07.07.2015, the assessee has furnished his reply

GIRDHARI LAL,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GURGAON

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for an amount of Rs.59,19,590/- has been confirmed. 2. Brief facts of this case leading to levy of penalty are as under. During the assessment year, assessee along with his brother Shri Ramesh Chand sold agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.38

SAMSHER,HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD-3, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh.M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Samsher Singh Vs. Ito House No.11, Garhi Ward-3 Alawalpur, Dharuhera, Haryana Rewari Pan No.Eopps5450P (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B is rejected. 2. That the Learned Assessing Authority/ CIT(A) further erred by framing assessment on basis of conjectures and surmises. 3. That the Learned Assessing Authority / CIT(A) further erred by charging interest wrongly U/s. 234A and 234B of IT Act, 1961. 4. That the Learned Assessing Authority/ CIT(A) further erred by initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately for failure to disclose the true particulars of\nincome as mentioned above.”\nAggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the\nAO in computing the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.17

BALBIR SINGH SAINI,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), GURGAON

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

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

54B of Income Tax Act, 1961. This amount of investment made in purchase of agriculture land is allowable which needs to be allowed. Assessee invested in residential house during the year. Assessee purchased plot and invested in construction of residential house during the year same is allowable under section 54 of Income tax act, 1961. It is prayed that this

SANJAY SHARMA,GREATER NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

penalty proceedings against him u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961. (Kindly refer Assessment order of Ld. ACIT, Circ1e-3, Noida Page No. 60 To 63). Having, aggrieved with the Assessment order, an appeal was moved by the Appellant Assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Noida-I (Kindly refer Form No. 35 Page No.68

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMINATHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

54B. 54C, 54D, 54G & 54GA” as would be evident from the Assessment Order (Para 2, Page 1 of the Assessment Order) 5. During scrutiny proceedings, the said claim of deduction under section 54F, had been examined in detail and duly allowed. However, only the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 10,25,801/- & the expense

SIMRAN BAGGA,DUBAI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT. TAXATION, 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty proceeding u/s 270A(9)(a) of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income for 'misrepresentation or suppression of facts', without assigning any reason or providing reasons for satisfaction as to what facts have been misrepresented or supressed by the Appellant in the present case.” 3. Simran Bagga, is a non-resident individual residing