DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

AMAR NATH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

54F of the Act for construction of existing residential accommodation, declared the long-term capital gains at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer by observing that the bills and vouchers furnished by the Assessee in support of the construction made by Assessee are bogus and fictitious and, therefore, after disallowing the claim of exemption made by Assessee u/s

NEELAM GARG,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD NO. 3, KARNAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargneelam Garg, Vs. Ito, Hem Chand Jain, H. No. 2, Ward No. 3, Huda Staff Owarter, No. 1, Karnal Sector-13, Extn, Karnal, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpg2119D Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2023

271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, categorically states that penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof. But by reason of such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars alone, the assessee does not ipso facto become liable for penalty. Imposition of penalty is not automatic. Not only

PARTAP SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s 54F of the Act, in respect of long term capital gain and added back to the total income of the assessee. I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income in respect of the amount as discussed above, in terms of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty

SUKH DARSHAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD.43(2) , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 271 for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income Give credit of pre-paid taxes. Charge interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D and withdraw interest u/s 244A, if allowed earlier, as per provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue a copy of this order to the assessee.” 4. With

ACIT, CIRCLE-69(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY CHOUDHARY, DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1274/Del/2020, A.Y. 2013-14

section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has not filed any documentary evidence whatsoever, in support of his claim of construction during these proceedings. (Disallowance - Rs.3,14,48,500/-) Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. NIRANJAN KOIRALA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

section 54F of the I.T.Act, 1961. The claim for deduction is therefore disallowed. On this account, an addition of Rs. 10,51,01,820/- is made to the income of the assessee from 'long term capital gains'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

BARMINCO INDIAN UNDERGROUND MINING SERVICES LLP,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

section 54F of the I.T.Act, 1961. The claim for deduction is therefore disallowed. On this account, an addition of Rs. 10,51,01,820/- is made to the income of the assessee from 'long term capital gains'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SMT. VEENA BHUTANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were also initiated, which resulted into issuance of notice dated 23- 07-2013 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In response the Assessee claimed that the sum of Rs.12,14,077/- remained un-utilized due to the reason that the competent authority delayed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately.” 7. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who in turn, enhanced the income from capital gains to Rs. 1,73,65,056/- while disallowing the entire deduction u/s 54F. 4 Subramanian Swaminathan 8. The relevant findings

MANJULA SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhrimanjula Sethi Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Assistant L-42A Lajpat Nagar-Ii Commissioner Of Income New Delhi- 110024 Tax/Ito,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aatps7572E Appellant .. Respondent

section 53A of the "Transfer of Property Act." It is clear that the assessee had not purchased a new asset which is mandatory to claim exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the exemption u/s 54F is not allowable to the assessee. 2.1 The assessee, in its reply, filed her submission. The main points are reproduced below

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

ABHA AGARWAL,MORADABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

54F. 7. Based on such issues, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO. 8. The assessee had earned LTCG of Rs.4,23,36,686/- during the year after selling her assets. The assessee claimed to have reinvested part of such LTCG as under:- i) Amount of Rs.50,00,000/- into "specified bonds issued by REC Limited

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

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

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

BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s 271(i) (c) of the Act are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. Further, the learned CIT(Appeals) confirmed this view by holding as under: “5.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. As regards the disallowance of deduction u/s 54B, the issue

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