KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

61,950/- in the return filed on 14.09.2021, therefore, remaining amount which comes at Rs. 36,44,470/- Since, the assessee has concealed particulars of his income, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated separately for concealment of particulars of income. Further, penalty u/s 271B of the I.T. Act is hereby initiated for non-maintenance

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

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

61 00lOell2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10 against the penalty order U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961, fixing the date of hearing on 23-08-2022. Hon'ble Sir, It is submitted that in this case, the assessee has received a notice fixing the date of hearing on 23-08-2022. In brief, facts of the case

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

penalty of Rs. 2,01,39,072/- by the AO under the said section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction as Assessing Officer has not mentioned in notice u/s 271(1)(c) under which violation he has issued notice.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company derives income from Hydro Power

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED,WEST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

61,31,728. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding levy of penalty for concealment of income in the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, not appreciating that in the assessment order passed for the subject assessment year, penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. That

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

section 271(1)(c) i.e. "concealment of particular of income" as well as "furnishing of inaccurate particulars". As penalty proceedings were initiated vide original assessment order dt. 26.03.1999, the AO was well within his limits to impose penalty in respect of the income represented by the said disallowance. 1 Mrs. Neera Radia for retainership

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee derives income from real estate business. On 11.12.2008, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee. Notice under Section 153A

SMS CONCAST AG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 levying a penalty of Rs. 36,26,752/-. 3. That on the facts and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) upholding penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is illegal, erroneous, unjust, arbitrary, based on surmises and conjectures, against the principles of natural justice and without application

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant operative paragraphs of the order of the CIT(A) is extracted hereunder:- “5.1 I have considered the facts of the case and contention of the AR of the appellant. At the outset, the contentions of the AR in stating that the order levying penalty is liable to be set aside

GAUTAM CHADHA L/H MRS. RATNA CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 28(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

u/s 274 of the Act and ultimately levied the penalty to the tune of Rs. 61,06,254/- @ of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. The Assessee being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer, preferred first appeal before the learned Commissioner, who by impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

KHAITAN AND PARTNERS,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-61(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 271(1)(c) under which the AO proposed to levy the penalty and produced the copy of notice. Per contra, the ld DR submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. The submission of the assessee that the notice u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. LAKHANI ARMAN SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

61,120/-; and disallowance of excess material consumption claimed amounting to Rs. 3,16,71,631/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 3,20,32,751/- and vide penalty order dated 27.03.2019 levied a penalty

L T FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 levying a\npenalty of Rs.36,26,752/-.\n3. That on the facts and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals)\nupholding penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is illegal,\nerroneous, unjust, arbitrary, based on surmises and conjectures,\nagainst the principles of natural justice and without application

ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, vide order dated 28.03.2014 and the total income was determined at Rs. 13,51,56,930/- inter alia by making the following additions:- (1) disallowance of depreciation on land amounting to Rs. 1,17,51,405/- (2) disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D amounting to Rs. 3,61,025/- (3) addition on account

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

61,838/- 16A Total 24,59,362/- 5. As stated earlier, since the TDS remittance details and challan numbers are to be reflected in the TDS Certificate in Form 16A and that the same could be reflected only after the remittance of TDS amounts, the assessee was Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd prevented from reasonable cause in not issuing the Form

AGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Agarwal Packers & Movers Ltd., Vs Dcit, Wedding Mall, 3Rd Floor, Local Central Circle-1(2), Shopping Centre, Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aafca3559A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By Mrs. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2022 Order

penalty proceedings in the assessment order u/s 143(3) and subsequently by way of show cause notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271, the AO has not apprise the assessee about the specific charge, under which assessee has been held guilty of penal action.” FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that

TRIUNE ENERGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Ani Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmatriune Energy Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-1/H-4, Mohan Circle-25(2), Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi Mathura Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1045E

section 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act is given here-in-below:-(Amount in Rs.) Concealed income where penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) is initiated 62,89,890/- Tax sought to be evaded 20,40,755/- Minimum penalty imposable @ 100% 20,40,755/- Maximum penalty imposable @300% 61

GAYATRI VILLA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

61, Nirmal Bagh, A Central Circle – 13 Pasulok Rishikesh New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AANFG 9593 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv Department By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay Date of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- Both the above captioned appeals by the assessee are directed towards two separate orders

GAYATRI VILLA ,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

61, Nirmal Bagh, A Central Circle – 13 Pasulok Rishikesh New Delhi New Delhi PAN – AANFG 9593 P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv Department By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay Date of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- Both the above captioned appeals by the assessee are directed towards two separate orders