SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction claimed of Rs.51,02,718/- under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer while making the aforesaid additions also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In purusance

NOVA PROMOTERS AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roynova Promoters & Vs. Ito, Ward 13(3) Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Ito Building, I.P. Estate 7, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi – 34

271(1)(c) with reference to the addition made under section 68. Thus, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this aspect was to be set aside [Para 27]" 416 In CIT v. Prathi Hardware Stores 1993] 203 ITR 641 (ORL) Hon'ble Orissa High Court on identical issue have upheld imposition of penalty u/s

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of 1.T.Act: 1. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

271(l)(c) of the Act on deeming addition under section 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 3,41,59,950 /-. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) -26 has erred in law and on facts by confirmed a penalty u/s

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

271(l)(c) of the Act on deeming addition under section 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 3,41,59,950 /-. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) -26 has erred in law and on facts by confirmed a penalty u/s

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

271(l)(c) of the Act on deeming addition under section 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 3,41,59,950 /-. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) -26 has erred in law and on facts by confirmed a penalty u/s

M.L. SINGHI & ASSOCIATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, these four appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

271(l)(c) of the Act on deeming addition under section 68 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 3,41,59,950 /-. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) -26 has erred in law and on facts by confirmed a penalty u/s

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

68 of the Act. Further, the AO made addition of Rs.17,83,073/- on account of credit card payments. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and subsequently, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.6,00,232/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT was not justified in directing the assessing officer to re-compute tax liability in accordance with section 115BBE of the Act even though the computation of tax in the assessment order is neither erroneous

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

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

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

ACIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUSHAN KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Section 68 of the Income Tax act and is hereby added to income of assessee. Also tam satisfied that the assessee has furnished the accurate particulars of income therefore penalty proceedings us 271(1) c) is being initiated separately. 8. Further, from careful and vigilant reading of first appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

68 and Rs. 1,60,062/- u/s 69C in respect of bogus long term capital gain and commission thereon respectively. The Assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings. Thereafter the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2018 imposed penalty of Rs. 9,02,488/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned

SARA SAE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 9058/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years: 2008-09 Addl. Cit, Sara Sae Private Limited, बनाम Special Range – 8, E – 30, Basement, New Delhi. Anand Niketan, Vs. New Delhi – 110 021. Pan No. Aaacs6857L अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act which is placed at pages 66 & 68

RAMA PAPER MILLS LTD,BIJNORE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-01, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rama Paper Mills Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Najeebabad Road, Central Circle-01, Kiratpur, Kanpur. Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aabcr5686D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2019 Of The Cit(A), Moradabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs.9,27,000/-,Imposed By The Ao., Invoking The Provisions Of Sec 271 (1) ( C) Of It Act 1961. 2. That The Ld. Cit (Appeal) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/-, Without Looking Into Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Relying On Irrelevant Judicial Pronouncements. 3. That The Impugned Appellate Order Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Bad In Law & In Violation Of Rudimentary Principles Of Contemporary Jurisprudence. 4. That The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/- U/S. 271(1) (C) Without Clearly Specifying The Charge I.E. Concealment Of Income "Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars. 5. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add/Alter Any/All Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal. 6. That The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying The Penalty Of Rs. 9,27,000/- U/S. 271(1) (C) Despite There Is No Concealment Of Income By The Appellant Nor Assessee Furnished In Inaccurate Particulars Of Income By The Appellant.”

u/s 68 was made on admission of the assessee, the Tribunal, after considering the relevant material and evidence on record, having come to the conclusion that the presumption under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) stood rebutted, it was justified in deleting the penalty