A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and material placed before us and adverted to. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards additional income included in the return filed under Section153A pursuant to search under Section

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and material placed before us and adverted to. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards additional income included in the return filed under Section153A pursuant to search under Section

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and material placed before us and adverted to. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards additional income included in the return filed under Section153A pursuant to search under Section

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and material placed before us and adverted to. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards additional income included in the return filed under Section153A pursuant to search under Section

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and material placed before us and adverted to. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards additional income included in the return filed under Section153A pursuant to search under Section

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and material placed before us and adverted to. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards additional income included in the return filed under Section153A pursuant to search under Section

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

9. We have dispassionately considered the rival submissions and material placed before us and adverted to. The solitary issue that arises for consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards additional income included in the return filed under Section153A pursuant to search under Section

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in this regard. 38. The closing stock will, therefore, be increased by Rs. 14,29,95,311/-. However, it is seen that an addition of Rs. 9

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated in this regard. 38. The closing stock will, therefore, be increased by Rs. 14,29,95,311/-. However, it is seen that an addition of Rs. 9

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

section 274 of for the assessment year 2010- 11 -regarding. Please refer to the above mentioned subject. The Hon’ble ITAT vide appellate order ITA No.l42/Del/2017 dated 05.01.2018 has pronounced the order therefore in order to decide the pending penalty proceeding you are hereby given the show cause notice as to why the penalty should not be levied u/s 271

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the impugned order is the inability of the appellant to substantiate its claim of expenditure as well as its trading results with relevant evidences thereby leading to estimation of the appellant's gross profit. 9 5.2 Section

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

9\nTotal Taxable Income\nRs.9,05,490/-\nRs.3,67,43,966/-\nRs.73,490/-\nRs.14,65,490/-\nRs.3,91,88,346/-\n4.1.\nThe AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the\nAct and issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act on\n28.12.2007. The assessee challenged the assessment order in appeal\nbefore the Ld. CIT(A) against

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty SHRI VINOD JINDAL proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ratio of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty SHRI VINOD JINDAL proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ratio of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice

VINOD JINDAL,FARIDABAD, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty SHRI VINOD JINDAL proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ratio of the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice