GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash

JAGDISH PRASAD BHARAT KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act; iv) Fourthly, on merits of the claim no where it is objected by Ld AO/CIT-A that extant claim u/s 10(38) of the Act is already decided in favor of assessee by various higher court rulings so penalty u/s 271(l)(c) cannot be levied when addition itself is seriously questionable; v) Fifthly

JAGDISH PRASAD AVDESH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 271 (1) (c) of the Act; iv) Fourthly, on merits of the claim no where it is objected by Ld AO/CIT-A that extant claim u/s 10(38) of the Act is already decided in favor of assessee by various higher court rulings so penalty u/s 271(l)(c) cannot be levied when addition itself is seriously questionable; v) Fifthly

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty was levied in respect of addition u/s 115JB of I.T. Act. The relevant portions of the aforesaid Assessment Order dated 26.09.2008 and the aforesaid order dated 28.03.2012 U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, on Section 115JB of I.T. Act, are reproduced as under: Relevant portions of Assessment order dated 26.09.2008 “Taxability u/s 115JB Vide order sheet entry

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

The appeal is allowed

68 (as\ndiscussed) Para-7\nCommission paid (as discussed\n) Para in 8\nInterest paid Disallowed (as\ndiscussed) Para in 9\nTotal Taxable Income\nRs.9,05,490/-\nRs.3,67,43,966/-\nRs.73,490/-\nRs.14,65,490/-\nRs.3,91,88,346/-\n4.1.\nThe AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct and issued notice u/s 271

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

68 (as discussed) Para-7 Rs.3,67,43,966/- Commission paid (as discussed Rs.73,490/- ) Para in 8 Interest paid Disallowed (as discussed) Para in 9 Rs.14,65,490/- Total Taxable Income Rs.3,91,88,346/- 4.1. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) are bad in law being contrary to facts, principles of natural justice, provisions of law and judgments of courts in India.” 4. The brief facts relating to the issue in dispute are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring net taxable income at Rs. 35,29,470/- on 17.9.2015 for the assessment year

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68,000.00 and accordingly initiated penalty in quantum order. Then by and expenses of OIDB were no more considered as application of income but allowable u/s 36(l)(xii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thus Ld. ACIT was duty bound to revise the reasoning in show cause before holding the appellant guilty under explanation (1) of 271

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68,000.00 and accordingly initiated penalty in quantum order. Then by and expenses of OIDB were no more considered as application of income but allowable u/s 36(l)(xii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thus Ld. ACIT was duty bound to revise the reasoning in show cause before holding the appellant guilty under explanation (1) of 271

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68,000.00 and accordingly initiated penalty in quantum order. Then by and expenses of OIDB were no more considered as application of income but allowable u/s 36(l)(xii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thus Ld. ACIT was duty bound to revise the reasoning in show cause before holding the appellant guilty under explanation (1) of 271