RAJINDER PRASHAD PALLIWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal

54B and 54EC of the Act. The AO took the view that the AO assessed the income from the sale of the plots as business income instead of capital gain shown by the assessee and treated the sum of Rs.11,11,225/- as the income from business. In addition to this, he added a sum of Rs.44,282/- towards

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

SURESH DUTT MALHOTRA,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

penalty amounting to Rs. 93,97,840/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 1 Assessment year 2007-08 2.0 Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed declaring an income of Rs. 31,74,010/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that

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

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The present appeal before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) has been filed by Revenue against the aforesaid order dated 26.09.2016 wherein Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty. At the time of hearing before us, the learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) for assessee submitted

ROHTAS SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated on wrong claim of exemption u/s 54B and 54F of the I.T.Act, 1961.” ITA No:-6392/Del/2016 [In the case of Late Shri Ram Sarup] (Assessment Year: 2007-08) 2. “The notice under section

LATE SH. RAM SARUP THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SUDESH,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated on wrong claim of exemption u/s 54B and 54F of the I.T.Act, 1961.” ITA No:-6392/Del/2016 [In the case of Late Shri Ram Sarup] (Assessment Year: 2007-08) 2. “The notice under section

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

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

SH. RAMESH KUMAR L/H LATE SH. KUNWAR SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO, HARYANA

The appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaia N D Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Ramesh Kumar L/H Late Sh. Ito Kunwar Singh Ward- 2 S/O. Mohan Lal Vill. Namaul Padiawas, Haryana Vs. P.O. Gurdaspur, Majra, Tehsil & Distt. Rewari Haryana

54B is made by the Appellant in time under section 139(1 )/l39(4) but the same has been wrongly disallowed by the Ld. AO. 19. The Ld. CIT (A)/ Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law by initiating penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation

POORAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c). 3. The assessee has made an application under Right to Information Act 2015 dated 24/11/2005. In respect of said application, the ITO gave the reply ITO/ Chief Public Information Officer(CPIO) gave the information vide letter dated 8/12/2005 in the said letter, it was stated that:- (i) A notice

M/S. POORAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1545/Del/2012 & Ita No. 4289/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c). 3. The assessee has made an application under Right to Information Act 2015 dated 24/11/2005. In respect of said application, the ITO gave the reply ITO/ Chief Public Information Officer(CPIO) gave the information vide letter dated 8/12/2005 in the said letter, it was stated that:- (i) A notice

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

SUDHA JAJODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are not attracted at all. 3(a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs. 40,20,276/- on Rs. 179,16,125/- which comprises of Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 1,78,84,855/- and Agriculture income

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Vs Shailendra, Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V.K.Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. B.R.Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.06.2018

section 2(14) of I.T.Act. 3. That the A.O has not allowed the rebate u/s 54B purchase of agriculture land in the name of his mother, therefore, assessment made by A.O. is bad in law. 4. That the penalty proceeding u/s 271

GUNJAN GARG,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA Subsequently notices were issued and explanation was filed by the assessee. Consequent to that the income of the assessee was assessed u/s 143 (3) of The Act on 29 November 2017 at the same income which was returned, by the Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 48 (1), New Delhi

MUKESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 16, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed considering the above two aspects and keeping the other aspects open

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gunjan Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aagpg5718B (Appellant) (Respondent) Mukesh Garg, Vs. Pr. Cit-16, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates Ca, Room No. 101, Drum Shape L-7A(Lgf) South Exten. Part-Ii, New Building, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaapg2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA Subsequently notices were issued and explanation was filed by the assessee. Consequent to that the income of the assessee was assessed u/s 143 (3) of The Act on 29 November 2017 at the same income which was returned, by the Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 48 (1), New Delhi