MOHD. JAMAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without giving any finding as to the merits of the case on concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on the facts and in law in confirming the penalty under Section 271

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)

80,261/- as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 4. During assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO confronted the assessee with the fact that the company M/s. Surabhi Chemicals and Investment Ltd. is not a genuine company and a penny stock company the trading of which was suspended by the SEBI. 5. In response the assessee contended that

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

80) xi) 09.03.2022 Order passed by learned Commissioner of income Tax Appeals against order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act xii) 24.03.2022 Reply filed by the appellant company in response to notice u/s 274 read with section 270A of the Act (99-101) xiii) 23.02.2023 Notice issued u/s 274 read with section 270A

ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of The Act. In this regard, I would like to rely on the following judicial pronouncements: “[2014] 51 taxmann.com 523 (Delhi), HIGH COURT OF DELHI, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalindi Rail Nirman Engg. Ltd. “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of Income (In case of estimation of profit

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member A.Yr. : 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar, Vs. Acit, Cc-14, New Delhi 77-78, Rama Royal Residency, Milk Mohsangarh, Siyana Road, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh-203001 (Pan: Abbpk0132H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

80,000/- + Rs. 50,20,000). It is further observed from the copy of penalty order passed u/s. 271AAB dated 31.3.2019 in assessee’s case for the year under consideration wherein, penalty u/s. 271AAB was imposed by the AO qua the surrendered amount of Rs. 92,00,000/- (wrongly mentioned as as 98,20,000/-. As per appeal order passed

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not attracted, for merely making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case also, the claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for the sole reason that the assessee could not get the approval from DSIR

AROMATRIX FLORA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "80-IC", "143(3)", "147", "148", "250", "115JB

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

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

penalty cannot be imposed on the assessee. He also submitted that notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1) of the Act are vitiated since did not specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: 1. ITA No.6330/Mum/2012 ACIT Vs. Deepesh Yum Pajwani 2. ITA No. 5878/Mum/2012

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

80,560/- after making an addition in the sum of Rs. 4,95,020/- towards unexplained cash deposits. The ld. AO in the said assessment order also stated that penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act are being initiated separately. The assessment framed by the ld. AO was accepted by the assessee and no further appeal was preferred before

SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAMLI

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is 80 years of age. The assessee had sold her agricultural land. The assessee filed her return of income in pursuance to notice u/s

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or subsection (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” In view of above, the AO levied a penalty of Rs.1,29,39,641/-. 5.1 I have considered the facts of the ground, contention of the AR of the appellant and impugned order. During the course of assessment proceedings, an addition of Rs.3,80

M/S. INDIA EXPOSITION MART LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, is initiated separately.”\n\n(2.3) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in which the following grounds\nof appeal were raised:\n\n\"1. The Learned DCIT erred in law by reopening assessment u/s 147 of\nIncome Tax on the basis of change in opinion.\n2. The Learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. NG TECHNOLOGIES LTD

The appeal is disposed of

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and penalty equal to 100% of the tax payable of Rs. 2014:DHC:6588-DB ITA 82/2012 Page 3 of 14 80,66,400/- on the concealed income was imposed. 6. We will be referring to the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who affirmed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty cannot be imposed on the assessee. He also submitted\nthat notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1) of the Act are\nvitiated since did not specifically state the grounds mentioned in\nsection 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Reliance has placed on the following\ndecisions:\n1.\nITA No.6330/Mum/2012 ACIT Vs. Deepesh Yum Pajwani\n2.\nITA No. 5878/Mum/2012

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty of 18,80,120/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act), pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28 ("Ld. CIT(A)") under Section

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. ATEEQ AHMED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) relating to downscaling of claim u/s 80IB(10)… …. …. 5.12 It is seen that the downsizing of the claim was based upon the figure in the profit and loss account. Neither any particulars were concealed, nor any inaccurate particulars were filed. A perusal of the assessment order as well as order imposing penalty shows that