DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty @ 100% on such additions were made. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 16 28. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) referred to the judicial pronouncements and observed that mere treatment and re-classification of claim towards business loss as speculative loss

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

63,98,20,165/-, thereby making an addition of Rs. 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

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 271(1)(c) of the Act still the defect in the notice of not striking of irrelevant matter will vitiate the entire penalty proceedings. For this proposition, the ld. AR relied upon the order dated 22.11.2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-04 vs M/s Gragerious Projects

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

63,276/- invoking the provision of section 271AAB read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by the AO on the addition of Rs.98,14,508/- made by AO estimating profit on undisclosed

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

63,276/- invoking the provision of section 271AAB read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by the AO on the addition of Rs.98,14,508/- made by AO estimating profit on undisclosed

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

63,276/- invoking the provision of section 271AAB read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by the AO on the addition of Rs.98,14,508/- made by AO estimating profit on undisclosed

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

63 (Madras), CIT vs Sivananda Steels Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 683 (Madras); and Commissioner of Income tax vs Ajaib Singh and Co (2002) 253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

63 (Madras), CIT vs Sivananda Steels Ltd (2002) 256 ITR 683 (Madras); and Commissioner of Income tax vs Ajaib Singh and Co (2002) 253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial

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

63,09,501/- and on the basis of estimation of profit an 3 addition of Rs. 1,14,07,009/- was made. The assessee did not file any appeal against the said estimation of profit. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act and vide order dated 22.09.2016 levied a penalty

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

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 of accounts and get audited.” (emphasis supplied) 3.2 The AO, thereafter, issued penalty notice dated 24.03.2022, wherein the first paragraph of the penalty notice reads as under: “ Whereas

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

63-65) iii) 19.11.2019 Notice issued u/s 274 read with section 270A of the Act (66) iv) 01.01.2020 Appellant company filed an appeal before learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals against order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act (67-68) v) 04.01.2020 Reply filed by the appellant company in response to notice u/s 274 read with section

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 15.09.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). M/s. Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified

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’).

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), were unsustainable - Held, yes [Para 63] [In favour of assessee].” 12. In the light of the above discussion of the Hon’ble Bombay and Karnataka High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case we find merit in the legal ground raised by the assessee. The order passed u/s