DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

57,90,96,001/- (Trading addition of Rs. 20,02,18,513/- and disallowance of project loss Rs. 37,87,77,488/-). The Assessing Officer (“AO”), while framing the assessment, also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 08.03.2016 u/s 274 read with section

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

section 50C when 2 Shyam Sunder Kansal Vs. ITO after valuation by DVO Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) deleted major part of addition of AO and this addition is not an specific addition one. 3. Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the penalty on additions of FDR interest which the assessee sue moto surrendered as income before making

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

VISHWANATH AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. THE ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-05, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

57,541/-, Rs. 4,24,29,346/-, Rs. 2,62,05,329/- and Rs. 5,52,42,377/- for AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 respectively. The JCIT also did not issue any show cause notice with regard to the alleged breach of section 269T with regard to the aforesaid amounts yet he levied penalties for all these four

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25/03/2022, in which the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had filed his return of income for Asst. Year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.25,38,700/- and subsequent to assessment initiated u/s 153A r.w.sec 143(3), the total income was assessed to tax at Rs.44,57,610/-. Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25/03/2022, in which the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had filed his return of income for Asst. Year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.25,38,700/- and subsequent to assessment initiated u/s 153A r.w.sec 143(3), the total income was assessed to tax at Rs.44,57,610/-. Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25/03/2022, in which the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had filed his return of income for Asst. Year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.25,38,700/- and subsequent to assessment initiated u/s 153A r.w.sec 143(3), the total income was assessed to tax at Rs.44,57,610/-. Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1998-99

271(1) (c) of the Act and vide order dated 22.09.2016 levied a penalty of Rs. 2,57,51,235/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who deleted the penalty on the basis that the notice u/s 274 read with Section

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

section 10(34A) also consequentially would not have any application. Hence, the very basis of denial of carry forward longterm capital loss per se made by the Id AO is legally incorrect. Since the assessee had not challenged the same in the quantum proceedings, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act stood levied on the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

57,395/-. Admittedly in the assessment order no satisfaction was recorded for violation of provisions of section 269ST and proposal for initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 27IDA. ITAs No.2225 & 2226/Del/2025 4. Then in response to notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 27 IDA dated 05.05.2022 for imposition of penalty of Rs. 17,22,76,762 u/s 27IDA on the basis

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SEVEN SEAS HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

57,395/-. Admittedly in the assessment order no satisfaction was recorded for violation of provisions of section 269ST and proposal for initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 27IDA. ITAs No.2225 & 2226/Del/2025 4. Then in response to notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 27 IDA dated 05.05.2022 for imposition of penalty of Rs. 17,22,76,762 u/s 27IDA on the basis

ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of The Act. In this regard, I would like to rely on the following judicial pronouncements: “[2014] 51 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi), HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of Income (In case of estimation of profit