M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

71,778,000/- on account of provision for stamp duty, disallowance of Rs. 125,458/- on account of claim of depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 656,514/- on account of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT, vide order dated 7th April, 2009 confirmed these disallowances. Penalty of Rs. 27,935,509/- was imposed u/s

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

71,778,000/- on account of provision for stamp duty, disallowance of Rs. 125,458/- on account of claim of depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 656,514/- on account of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT, vide order dated 7th April, 2009 confirmed these disallowances. Penalty of Rs. 27,935,509/- was imposed u/s

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

71,778,000/- on account of provision for stamp duty, disallowance of Rs. 125,458/- on account of claim of depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 656,514/- on account of deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT, vide order dated 7th April, 2009 confirmed these disallowances. Penalty of Rs. 27,935,509/- was imposed u/s

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271 (1 )(c) are clearly not attracted in this case. In view thereof, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.57,88,000/- is deleted.” 3. The present appeal before us is filed by Revenue against the aforesaid impugned order dated 09.12.2016 of the CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in the present appeal

MOVING PICTURE COMPANY INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.12,71

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

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 cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c ) as there is no concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars. There is only a difference of opinion on the facts. It is not a case whereby the Ldi AO has made deep investigation on the documents on the basis of which he encountered or found out concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars

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 cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c ) as there is no concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars. There is only a difference of opinion on the facts. It is not a case whereby the Ldi AO has made deep investigation on the documents on the basis of which he encountered or found out concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars

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 cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c ) as there is no concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars. There is only a difference of opinion on the facts. It is not a case whereby the Ldi AO has made deep investigation on the documents on the basis of which he encountered or found out concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars

CHETAN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 11/3/2013 at total income of Rs.43,71,04,170/- against the return income amounting to Rs.3,41,612/-. After making addition of Rs.43,67,62,555/- on account of unexplained credit entries u/s 68 of the Act. The penalty u/s 271(1

CHETAN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 11/3/2013 at total income of Rs.43,71,04,170/- against the return income amounting to Rs.3,41,612/-. After making addition of Rs.43,67,62,555/- on account of unexplained credit entries u/s 68 of the Act. The penalty u/s 271(1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

71,32,55,400/- for AY 2006-07 and Rs. 8.06 crores /- for AY 2005-06 levied by the AO was deleted. Issues involved in both the appeal are similar and therefore both the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 02. The grounds of appeal for respective assessment years are as under:- ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 1. "Whether

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

71,32,55,400/- for AY 2006-07 and Rs. 8.06 crores /- for AY 2005-06 levied by the AO was deleted. Issues involved in both the appeal are similar and therefore both the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 02. The grounds of appeal for respective assessment years are as under:- ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 1. "Whether

NEHA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-18(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the 17

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda

71,690/- u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the IT Act. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

NEHA TOKA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-18(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the 17

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda

71,690/- u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the IT Act. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act after obtaining approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 2, Meerut, vide F.No. Addl.CIT-MRT/Range-II/Penalty Approval/2017-18/283 dated 19-12-2017. CIT- Finding: In this case, the A.O. has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,84,382/-• since the assessee had, in the opinion of the A.O. concealed particulars of income amounting

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

1 to 5 of grounds of appeal relates to levy of penalty of Rs. 94,120/- u/s 270A of the Act. The contentions of the appellant in brief are as under Sr. Contention in brief Paras of No. this submission i) No specific charge in the notice and therefore penalty 7-8 levied is untenable. ii) That penalty proceedings

SUNIL SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

71,960 which included additional income offered amounting to Rs. 1,82,000 being the loan credits in the names of ten persons. The AO imposed the penalty on the appellant on the ground that the appellant had disclosed additional income for the assessment years in question and also failed to prove the genuineness loan credits. The Tribunal deleted