M/S. C.S. DATAMATION RESEARCH SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act the AO has levied the penalty. Since the said show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

9. She relied up on following judicial precedents on identical issue of cancellation of penalty on non striking off one of the twin charges:- i. ITAT, 'D' bench, Kolkata, in the course of hearing of appeal of Smt. Ashok Kumar Mondal, for A.Y 2010-11, at the request of the DR, allowed the department to make a written submission

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

9. She relied up on following judicial precedents on identical issue of cancellation of penalty on non striking off one of the twin charges:- i. ITAT, 'D' bench, Kolkata, in the course of hearing of appeal of Smt. Ashok Kumar Mondal, for A.Y 2010-11, at the request of the DR, allowed the department to make a written submission

M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

9. She relied up on following judicial precedents on identical issue of cancellation of penalty on non striking off one of the twin charges:- i. ITAT, 'D' bench, Kolkata, in the course of hearing of appeal of Smt. Ashok Kumar Mondal, for A.Y 2010-11, at the request of the DR, allowed the department to make a written submission

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

vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty proceedings

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

vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty proceedings

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

vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty proceedings

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

vii) the proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the ground that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' if otherwise, it conforms to the parameters set out hereinabove are met." 6.8. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty proceedings

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

u/s 271 (1 )(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.Com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC): 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

M/S. OCHOA LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

9 ITA No.4967/Del./2016 order. However, if the existence of the conditions could not be discerned from the said order and if it is a case of relying on deeming provision contained in Explanation 1 or in Explanation 1 (B), then though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

9/ 2018. 10. All the additional grounds are in fact arguments of the assessee, legal in nature and therefore those are admitted and are dealt with in the arguments raised by the ld AR. 11. The learned authorised representative vehemently submitted that there is no failure on the part of the assessee in complying any of the notices issued

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,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

9 ITA No. 3052/Del/2014, AY:2008-06 M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. Sheet. Instead, a deduction of equivalent was being claimed as deduction at the time of computation of income (which was being disallowed by the revenue). 2.3.2 Although, there was clear deviation from the practice being followed earlier and the case was under scrutiny, however, assesses made

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

vii) Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28.02.2003 the Assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23.12.2005. (viii) Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also dismissed the quantum appeal of the assessee vide order dated 11.08.2008. (ix) Vide order

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE, NEAR MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

vii. Trademark or viii. Similar property 3.9. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer referring to the Explanation-6 inserted by the Legislature to specifically clarify that the expression ‘process’ used in Explanation-2 would include and should be deemed to have always included transmission by satellite (including up- linking, amplification, conversion for down-linking of any signal), cable, optic-fibre

ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

vii) Accounting charges etc. b) the disallowance of balance legal fee of Rs 21,11,3071- incurred towards drafting shareholders agreement and foreign direct investment is not free from doubt and capable of having two views. 6.1 In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act, as initiated by the Learned Associate Director of Income - tax (Ld. ADIT), provisions of which are not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case; 10. That the appellant may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act, as initiated by the Learned Associate Director of Income - tax (Ld. ADIT), provisions of which are not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case; 10. That the appellant may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner

DSD NOELL GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act, as initiated by the Learned Associate Director of Income - tax (Ld. ADIT), provisions of which are not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case; 10. That the appellant may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 1. That the order of the Learned Commissioner