THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

80P of the Act. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26/12/2016 at total income of ₹ 1,03,830/-in the status of Association of persons (AOP). Thereafter, learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalty of ₹ 36,45,841/- vide

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able

SAINI CO-OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-48(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Saini Co-Operative Tharift & Vs Ito, Credit Society, 2429-21, Ward-48(1), Bazar Kamra Bangash, Darya New Delhi Ganj, New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabas8396K Appellant Respondent Shri K.Sampath, Adv. & Appellant By Shri V.Raj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr 01.07.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025

80P of the Act and could not be assessed under the head, “Income from other sources” as has been done in the instant case. Ld.AR further submits that identical issue has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 4428 & 4429/Del/2024 [AYs 2012-13 & 2017-18] order dated 27.02.2025wherein

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10 on the identical grounds, except the difference in penalty amount, inter alia that :- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred

DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 3533/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) that whether assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. c. Submitted the numerous case laws relating to the issue of penalty. 04. However AO rejecting the explanation of the assessee levied penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of Rs. 15449290/- . Against this order Assessee preferred appeal before CIT (A) who in turn confirmed the penalty

SAINI CO-OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieve with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned

MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

M/S MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well