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

80-IA of the Act and therefore, the entire claim made was false. This fact was admitted by the Director of the taxpayer company as well. Based on this finding, the tax officer stated in the assessment order that "in view of the facts discussed above ....penalty proceedings under Section 271{l}{c)of the Act are initiated for furnishing

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

80-IA of the Act and therefore, the entire claim made was false. This fact was admitted by the Director of the taxpayer company as well. Based on this finding, the tax officer stated in the assessment order that "in view of the facts discussed above ....penalty proceedings under Section 271{l}{c)of the Act are initiated for furnishing

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

80-IA of the Act and therefore, the entire claim made was false. This fact was admitted by the Director of the taxpayer company as well. Based on this finding, the tax officer stated in the assessment order that "in view of the facts discussed above ....penalty proceedings under Section 271{l}{c)of the Act are initiated for furnishing

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 27 l(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - Decided in favour of assessee. ” 6.2 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and respectfully following the precedents, we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor

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

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271AAA of I.T. Act. The AO observed that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also pay the tax liability arising thereon, the appellant had not met any of these conditions; that undisclosed income had not been offered in the return

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271AAA of I.T. Act. The AO observed that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also pay the tax liability arising thereon, the appellant had not met any of these conditions; that undisclosed income had not been offered in the return

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271AAA of I.T. Act. The AO observed that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also pay the tax liability arising thereon, the appellant had not met any of these conditions; that undisclosed income had not been offered in the return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271AAA of I.T. Act. The AO observed that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also pay the tax liability arising thereon, the appellant had not met any of these conditions; that undisclosed income had not been offered in the return

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271AAA of I.T. Act. The AO observed that while the provision required the assessee to offer undisclosed income in its return, substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived, and also pay the tax liability arising thereon, the appellant had not met any of these conditions; that undisclosed income had not been offered in the return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) by making the following observations: "There was no material or evidence to show that the transaction of sale and lease back was not genuine or was bogus nor was any material brought on record in the course of the reassessment proceedings. In the absence of any material having been produced by the Revenue to show

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section(‘U/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act(‘IT Act’ for short) wherein certain additions were made and penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act were initiated in respect of some of these additions; whereas penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act were not initiated in respect of the rest of the additions

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

Section 271(1)(c) and non-application of mind of the AO. 6. Therefore, in the absence of specification of the limb, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be initiated and the penalty notice issued to the assessee dated 08.03.2016 is defective and therefore the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty is correct. B. No penalty

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty amounting to Rs. 61,80,000/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on erroneous understanding of facts and provisions of law. ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not considering that in the absence of statutory notice required

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty amounting to Rs. 61,80,000/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on erroneous understanding of facts and provisions of law. ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not considering that in the absence of statutory notice required

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty amounting to Rs. 61,80,000/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on erroneous understanding of facts and provisions of law. ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not considering that in the absence of statutory notice required

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty amounting to Rs. 61,80,000/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on erroneous understanding of facts and provisions of law. ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not considering that in the absence of statutory notice required

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty amounting to Rs. 61,80,000/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on erroneous understanding of facts and provisions of law. ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not considering that in the absence of statutory notice required