DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

set of questions:- (i) Whether the Tribunal can travel beyond the facts recorded in the assessment order or the order of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act or the order of CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeal? (ii) Whether the Tribunal can bring new facts on record gathered from external sources / public domain, whereas such facts

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

set of facts, is bad in law and is liable to be quashed; Without prejudice to the above: 3. Ground No. 3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) / Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has disclosed fully and truly all the details in the return of income, during the course

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act which is not the intention of the legislature. Accordingly, sole ground of the assessee is allowed and penalty order as well as impugned order is set aside by deleting the penalty. In view of the above judgment, it is can be concluded that the stand taken by the Id. AO is totally incorrect

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

loss account of the assessee company, but was exempt U/s 54EC of I.T. Act, is not to be taken in account for calculation of Books Profit u/s 115JB of I.T Act.] In view of these judicial precedents, we are of the view that the issue as to whether amount of deduction U/s 80IB of I.T. Act is to be included

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

u/s 271(1)(c) could be initiated and the penalty notice issued to the assessee dated 08.03.2016 is defective and therefore the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty is correct. B. No penalty can be imposed on additions which are based on estimates and mere disallowance of claims 1. Brief facts of the case are that

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.3 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd [2017] 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S SUCON INDIA LTD, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

loss on derivative transactions which cannot be set off against the business income. He also made addition of Rs.4798/- u/s 14A r.w.r.8D and Rs.33,000/- being expenses incurred at ROC for increasing authorized share capital. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled; (para 7.3)" Penalty cannot be levied merely

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

Loss Account nor claimed as an expenditure has become a debatable issue. It has been held in various decisions that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is not leviable on account of additions which are debatable issues. We, therefore, are of the opinion that penalty u/s 271

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

set off the profits made by the assessee, the finding that the losses put forward were false is sufficient to hold that there was a scheme on part of the assessee to defeat the revenue. That was sufficient to attract the penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c)." 4.9 When a patently incorrect claim is made and disallowed, penalty

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

set off the profits made by the assessee, the finding that the losses put forward were false is sufficient to hold that there was a scheme on part of the assessee to defeat the revenue. That was sufficient to attract the penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c)." 4.9 When a patently incorrect claim is made and disallowed, penalty