Balaji Telefilms Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 88 ITR 270 (Mum.)(Trib.) Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 88 ITR 401 (Delhi) (Trib.) Silicon Graphics Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 88 ITR 389 (Delhi)(Trib.) Airports Authority of India; Add. CIT v. (2021)90 ITR 48 (Trib) (SN)(Delhi) ( Trib)/Dy. CIT v. Preity Zinta ( Ms) (2021)90 ITR 84/ 213 TTJ 673 (SN)/ 206 DTR 89 (Mum) (Trib)/Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021)90 ITR 89 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)/ITO v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd. (2021)90 ITR 36 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)/Pradeep Sood v. Dy. CIT (2021)90 ITR 44 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)/Royal Western India Turf Club v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 624 (Mum) (Trib)/Pal Synthetics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021)92 ITR 50 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)/Samal Infra Projects P. Ltd. v . ITO (2021)92 ITR 9 (Trib)(SN) (Delhi) ( Trib) Samal Infra Projects P. Ltd. v . ITO (2021)92 ITR 9 (Trib)(SN) (Delhi) ( Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid-Legal issue-Additional ground was admitted-Penalty provision u/s 271AAA is not applicable to search cases conducted after 1-7-2012. [S. 132, 254(1), 271AAA, 271AAB, 274]

Additional ground on legal issue is admitted and penalty levied without specifying the charge was deleted. The Tribunal also held that the penal provisions of section 271AAA were not at all applicable to the facts of the case since the search was conducted on the assessee after July 1, 2012. (AY.2007-08 to 2012-13, 2014-15)