ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

80G-Rs. 54,90,452/- 2 Atma Ram Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2. Non-Current investments: Rs. 59,53,24,036/- 3. Cash Deposits: Rs. 3,97,06,452/- 4. Purchases: Rs. 4,04,91,936/- 5. Rental Income: Rs.8,86,14,791/- 6. Sales of service: Rs.9,66,05,036/- 7. Aggregate other Income

JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(l)(c) of the Act issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer does not indicate the specific charge for which penalty p,, mgs were initiated. It is submitted that the Order imposing penalty u/section 271(l)(c) is vitiated and may accordingly be quashed / struck/ b / set aside as bad in law and without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that

M/S. KAVERI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80G of the Act to 10% of the GTI respectively. Consequently, AO proceeded to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide notice dated 29.12.2009 calling upon the assessee to explain as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) being not levied, on the additions made by the AO. Declining the contentions, raised

M/S. M & M MACHINE CRAFT (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

80G. 18. Furthermore, when it is proved on record that the claim of deductions made by the assessee company u/s 80IB an d80G is not 11 ITA No.2518/Del./2015 only incorrect but a malafide under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is attracted to confirm the penalty

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

80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The assessing officer restricted the deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act for an amount Of Rs. 1,61,05,733/-. 3. The assessing officer completed the assessment on the taxable income amounting Rs.35,98,970/- after disallowing the deduction u/s 80HHC and 80IA of the Act. Aggrieved the order

RATHI PRAGATI STEEL MANUFACTURING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 271 (1) (c) and the rules of natural justice.” GROUND NO. 4 3. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is arbitrary and illegal in as much as it is suffering from denial of natural justice as the assessee company filed

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 29th January, 2009, penalty of Rs.16,44,330/- was imposed inter-alia observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the explanation regarding additions/disallowances made in the assessment order resulting in reduction of returned loss. It was observed that the losses claimed could not be justified before

JAGAT PAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-35(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

80G deduction was reduced to 50%. In this background, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied for a sum of Rs.5,86,741/-. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal and held as under :- “7.11 In the above cited decision the Ld. CIT(A) has treated the disclosure of short term capital gain as business

MUKUT BEHARI LAL BHARGAVA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

80G and u/s 80GGA, respectively. Ground No. IV That the Ld. ACIT grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 () (c) of the Act, which is consequential.” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.07.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 68,30,670/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

80G of the Act of Rs. 7,026 allegedly holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, quantum appeal in respect of the said disallowance was decided against the appellant. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act with respect

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimax New York Life Insurance Vs. Dcit, Company Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the course of hearing the assessee has also raised the additional grounds related to claim of deduction u/s 80G

SH. MINAKETAN SAMAL,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

Penalty provision u/s 271(1 )(c) of the IT act is also attracted. Addition Rs. 2,75,906/-“ 3. Though the Appellant challenged the said additions as well as the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act before the ld. Commissioner, however, except filing adjournment applications and appearing once on 16.01.2014 and filing rejoinder dated 15.01.2014, neither attended

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred

M/S D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred

M/S MEGASOFT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 80G of the Income Tax .Act, 1961. This fact has not been examined by the Ld. CIT(A) and has provided no opportunity to assessee company to explain the same. 12. That the Learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on not adjudicating that the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in initiating penalty u/s 271

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

JINDAL STEEL POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

SHREE KRISHNA JANMASHTMI MAHOTSAV SAMITI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalshri Krishna Janmashtmi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahotsav Samiti Exemption, Ward 2(1) G4 Goenka Apartment, Civic Centre, Minto Road 19/41 Punjabi Bagh New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeas0987K Appellant .. Respondent

80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Its principal activities relate to organizing religious and cultural events (notably Janmashtami Mahotsav), establishment of Ashrams, and publication of spiritual and religious literature. As for AY 2014-15, the appellant filed a NIL return claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The AO framed assessment under Section