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

u/s 27I(I)(c) of the Act. Legal contentions bona fidely raised, whether they are ultimately accepted or rejected by the appropriate authority will not be generally an act of fraud or gross or willful negligence, the Court further held. The aforesaid decision of the single judge of the Calcutta High Court was affirmed by the Division Bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DEEPALI DESIGN & EXHIBITS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle-17 Vs. M/S Deepali Designs & Exhibits 9, 1St Floor, Behind Punjab Room No. 103, First Floor, Hall No. 1, Kesri, Wazirpur Industrial Ara Centre, Area, New Delhi – 110 035 E-2, Jhandewalan, (Pan: Aaffd1639M) New Delhi – 110 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By : Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Sh. Ridhi Karan Agarwal, Ca

Section 271(l)(c) is leviable. Hence penalty is deleted. 9. As regards ground no.5 where the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) and has made submissions regarding non applicability of the said provisions on the addition made on account of disallowance u/s 40A(3). The assessing officer has identified transactions aggregating Rs.60,90

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

90,00,000 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide impugned penalty order dated 30.01.2015, which was levied simply on the basis of findings in the quantum proceedings. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty levied under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act in respect of denial of claim regarding exclusion of AED credit

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

90,685/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal with Tribunal. Submission before ITAT

SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

90,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction claimed of Rs.51,02,718/- under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer while making the aforesaid additions also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that the assessee has concealed the particulars

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

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

90,455/-etc., 4. The assessee furnished submissions on various dates to the show cause notice during complete scrutiny assessment. With respect to the cash deposits, it was stated that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 3,97,06,452/- in HDFC Bank Ltd. The source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,95,56,047/- was only

FCI ASIA PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

90,635/- by making an addition of Rs.1,47,39,918/- on account of interest income chargeable to the taxable income of the assessee and by making addition of Rs.3,92,86,277/- on account of royalty/fee for technical services, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that since it had disclosed all the material facts to the AO, it cannot be said that it had concealed particulars of income. However, the AO has observed on this issue and has relied

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that since it had disclosed all the material facts to the AO, it cannot be said that it had concealed particulars of income. However, the AO has observed on this issue and has relied

KISSAN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

90,000/-. Since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of it’s income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately.” 14. When AO has not recorded a valid satisfaction and has also issued invalid notice u/s

M/S. SVP BUILDERS (INDIA) LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Vijay Pal Rao, Jm Ita No. 4673/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Svp Builders (India) Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 17, Kiran Enclave, G.T. Road, Tax, Circle-7(1), Ghaziabad New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs8870M Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Shailesh Gupta, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Amrapalli Das, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

90,120/- 7 SVP Builders (India) Ltd. This order is passed after obtaining prior approval from the Ld. Addl.CIT(Central Range), Meerut, vide letter F.No.Addl.CIT(CR)/MRT/S&S/Scrutiny/2010-11/461 dated 30.12.2010. Interest being charged as per law. Give credit for paid taxes. Issue necessary forms. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is being initiated separately in respect

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

M/S. STAR WIRE (INDIA) LIMITED,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4876/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Star Wire (India) Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 35, Link Road, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-Iii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1124Q Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 24.06.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common In These Appeals Which Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

90,220/-)’ ITA Nos. 4875 & 4876/Del/2016 7 Star Wire (India) Ltd. 10. It is also noticed that the AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the different charge i.e. concealment of particulars of taxable income which is evident from the order dated 29.06.2011 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the relevant portion read

M/S. STAR WIRE (INDIA) LIMITED,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4876/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Star Wire (India) Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 35, Link Road, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-Iii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1124Q Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 24.06.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common In These Appeals Which Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

90,220/-)’ ITA Nos. 4875 & 4876/Del/2016 7 Star Wire (India) Ltd. 10. It is also noticed that the AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the different charge i.e. concealment of particulars of taxable income which is evident from the order dated 29.06.2011 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the relevant portion read

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

90,027/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Penalty Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty under section