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

SMT. SANTOSH,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this ground

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

271(1) (c) on the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petro Products (P), particularly when appellant, a house wife was not convergent with the tax laws and claim made was based on opinion of the expert engaged for conducting tax obligations. The penalty levied by AO and wrongly confirmed

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MANGU RAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C.M.Garg, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 4929/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 2003-04

271(1) (C ) of the act and for penalty fresh examination of facts needs to be carried out whether the conduct of the assessee falls within the four corners of infringements for which penalty is leviable. In this background, we are deciding whether assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed the particulars of income. In penalty proceedings, even

SHANTANU KUMAR BOSE ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 54F. 7. That the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceeding U/s 271(l)(c) even though the Appellant

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

SH. SANJAY DHANDHANIA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjay Dhandhania, Vs. Ito, Ka-97, Kavi Nagar, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan:Agbps5235J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F was disallowed respectively. Ld AO also noted satisfaction about furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income while initiating penalty u/s 271

M/S. SHOURIE DUPLICATORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Shourie Duplicators Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd., 16A, Palam Marg, 8(2), New Delhi F-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacs0541B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07. In The Impugned Order, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Sustained The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Hrave Deleted The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.28,46,000/- As There Is No Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. 2. The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Has Disclosed The Complete Transaction In The Audited

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record including the paper book filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has held that there appeared to be deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal

SH. DHEERAJ GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2009-10 Sh. Dheeraj Gupta, Vs. Dcit C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Central Circle-1, Chartered Accountants New Delhi 4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi – 2 (Pan : Aagpg8850N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Department By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr

54F of the Act. In view of the facts of the case, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for concealment / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the assessment order passed under section

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

DR. SUNIL KHOSLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

271(1)© of the Act was initiated on addition on account of withdrawal of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. AO observed that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income and liable for penalty within the meaning of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SRAVANTHI KODURU, NEW DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealing two particulars of income. The penalty levied was Rs. 46,15,157/-. The assessee’s appeal against the imposition of penalty was allowed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) by holding that this was not a fit case for levy of 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

VIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-67(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Virender Kumar Sharma, Ito, Ward- 67(1), 1240, Sector-37, Arun Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The learned assessing officer erred in levying the interest u/s 234B of the Act. 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before disposal of the Appeal.” 6. Ld. counsel for the assessee

DR. KUSHAGRA KATARIYA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred both in facts and inl aw in charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave

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