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

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

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

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. 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

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. 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- 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

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

set off of loss. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act separately. Thereafter

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD), REWARI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1998-99

set aside vide order dated 26/27.03.2015 of the learned PCIT passed u/s 264 of the Act. Accordingly, In fresh assessment order 08.03.2016, u/s 143(3) read with section 264 of the Act, the AO assessed the assessee’s income at a loss of Rs. 5,05,35,194/-. In doing so the AO rejected the books of account u/s

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

271(1 )(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years 10. K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 4 | P a g e The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the onus

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

loss of revenue and should not invite harsh penalty u/s 271E of the I T Act, and that the transaction entered was attributable to exigency of business carried on by the assessee which constitute a ‘reasonable cause’ as contemplated under section 273B of the Act. I have considered above submission of the assessee. The issue involved in the present case

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

penalty u/s 271 (1) ( c) of the income tax act , but dealing with the controversy and also referring to the decision of the coordinate bench referred to above , in Asia Pacific Performance SICAV (supra) held as under :— We shall first discuss the assessee's explanation on the merits. The issue, as would be apparent from the foregoing, is the validity

PAMAS COMMODITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 19(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

set off of losses from the above income from undisclosed sources is disallowed. 6 ITA No.12/Del./2021 (Addition of Rs 9.46,580/-) Accordingly, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs 9,46,580/-, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2911/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Unitech Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Basement , 6, Circle - 27(1), Community Centre, Saket New Delhi Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaacr4290E (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss of the company may be reduced and assessed at NIL. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and after the perusal of the above submission filed by the A.R., the income of the assessee company is assessed at NIL. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for concealment of income.” 3. Subsequently, notices

AROMATRIX FLORA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

losses are shown, penalty can still be imposed\nin a case where on setting off the concealed income against any\nloss incurred by the assessee under other head of income or\nbrought forward from earlier years, the total income is reduced to a\nfigure lower than the concealed income or even a minus figure. The\ncourt was of the opinion

AIMIL PHARMACEUTICALS (I) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

penalty of Rs.36,72,755/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2010-11, was affirmed. 2. Brief facts, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal, are that the Assesseeby filling its return of income on 14.10.2010declared its income at ‘Nil’, which

HARSH INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed ex-parte

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance 11. Petro products Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has observed as under: “A glance of provision of section 271(1)(c) would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income