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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

section 50C when 2 Shyam Sunder Kansal Vs. ITO after valuation by DVO Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) deleted major part of addition of AO and this addition is not an specific addition one. 3. Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) is wrong in confirming the penalty on additions of FDR interest which the assessee sue moto surrendered as income before making

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

92,825/- in the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 6. The assessment record in this case was examined by the Ld. PCIT, and it was noticed that the ‘Tax Audit Report’ in Form 3CD, column 31(c), the assessee has made repayment of loan or deposit of Rs. 11,00,000/- to M/s. Basic Clothing

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

92 of the paper book. We find that in the first notice, the relevant clause has not been ticked off and the second notice is simply a show cause notice. However, in the quantum order Ld. AO, after due deliberations, clearly initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars which shows due application of mind qua penalty proceedings

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

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member A.Yr. : 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar, Vs. Acit, Cc-14, New Delhi 77-78, Rama Royal Residency, Milk Mohsangarh, Siyana Road, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh-203001 (Pan: Abbpk0132H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) can be imposed qua the amount of Rs. 92,00,000/- (wrongly mentioned by the CIT(A) as Rs. 98,20,000/-) which was surrendered in the return of income of Assessment Year 2013-14 filed u/s. 153A, in view

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub- section

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED,WEST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

3. Multivision Infotech (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT {2017} 88 taxmann.com 874 4. Fairdeal Tradelink Company Vs. ITO ITA No.3445/Mum/2016 (Mum) 5. CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginnin Factory {2013} 359 ITR 565 6. CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows {2016} 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) 7. Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT {2021} 434 ITR 1 (Bom) 8. PCIT Vs. Sahara India

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

92,163/-. 8. We find that the section 40A(2)(b) has no application to income aspect of the assessee JV in the facts of the instant case. The AO has not brought any comparable figures to disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

92,163/-. 8. We find that the section 40A(2)(b) has no application to income aspect of the assessee JV in the facts of the instant case. The AO has not brought any comparable figures to disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts

ATEPL RAHEE JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

271 AA is bad in law in view of non-mentioning of the limb under which the penalty was initiated. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the penalty despite the fact that the Ld. TPO has drawn no adverse inference and no adjustment

BRIGHT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED MBD HOUSE, GULAB BHAWAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5(1) NEW DELHI, JAO DCIT 4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalbright Enterprises Private Acit, Limited, Circle-5(1), Mbd House, Gulab Vs. New Delhi. Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zagar Marg, Jao Dcit, 4(2), New Delhi-110002 New Delhi.

3) dated 28.03.2013 and, as such, on the basis of binding judgments of Apex Court and different High Courts and Benches of the ITAT, the said levy of penalty is otherwise not valid.” 4. As regards to merits of the case, the assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

92 of the paper book. We find that in the first notice, the relevant clause has not been ticked off and the second notice is simply a show cause notice. However, in the quantum order Ld. AO, after due deliberations, clearly initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars which shows due application of mind qua penalty proceedings

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated for furnishing concealment of income/inaccurate particulars of income. 2.5. The A.O. accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.27,28,32,150/-. 3. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

3), the assessing officer in the impugned draft assessment order has proposed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act alleging non-disclosure of certain international transactions.In this regard, he brought to our notice the provisions of 45 Section 271AA of the Act which read as under: “Penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and document

GAUTAM KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

92 & 87, Defence Colony Flyover New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AIGPK0403M Assessee by : Sh. Sumit Bhatnagar, CA Revenue by : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.06.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders

GAUTAM KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

92 & 87, Defence Colony Flyover New Delhi Market, New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AIGPK0403M Assessee by : Sh. Sumit Bhatnagar, CA Revenue by : Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 21.06.2024 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders

JINDAL ITF LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-13(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

92,07,084/- and Rs.124.23,37,487/- respectively while framing the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 4. Having regard to the losses assessed at a lower figure under normal provision and Section 115JB of the Act, the addition/disallowance under normal provisions would not invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CBDT Circular