271(1)(c) 5. CIT v. S J Prasad

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAVIOUR BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

…r hand, relied upon the following decisions :- (i) CIT Vs. Prasanna Dugar – [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta). (ii) ACIT Vs. Smt. J. Mythili – 35 taxmann.com 86. (iii) Smt. Kiran Devi Vs. ACIT – [2009] 125 TTJ 631 (Delhi). (iv) CIT Vs. S.J. Prasad – [2008] 220 CTR 169 (Ker). (v) CIT Vs. Smt. Meera Devi – [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi). (vi) Shourya Towers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT – [2013] 30 taxmann.com 10 (Delhi). (vii) Sanjay Aggarwal Vs. CIT – [2011] 15 taxmann.com 34 (P&H). 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. The facts of the case are th…

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5235/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITA No.5236/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) Crew BOS Products Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, 37, Sector 4, IMT Manesar, Faridabad. Gurgaon. (PAN : AAACC3222F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2018 Date of Order : 19.12.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Crew BOS Products Ltd. (her…

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5235/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITA No.5236/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) Crew BOS Products Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, 37, Sector 4, IMT Manesar, Faridabad. Gurgaon. (PAN : AAACC3222F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2018 Date of Order : 19.12.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The appellant, Crew BOS Products Ltd. (her…

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

…g searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash of Rs. 5,75.000 was seized by department and in course of search assessee gave a statement declaring that amount belonged to another person but failed to prove same, there was concealment of income by assessee by virtue of op…

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

…g searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash of Rs. 5,75.000 was seized by department and in course of search assessee gave a statement declaring that amount belonged to another person but failed to prove same, there was concealment of income by assessee by virtue of op…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

…g searc- ch income was not disclosed in original return, it was a clear case of concealment of ncome attracting penalty under section 271(1 )(c); in such a case it was not even necessary to invoke Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 5. CIT Vs S J Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169(KER.) where Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash of Rs. 5,75.000 was seized by department and in course of search assessee gave a statement declaring that amount belonged to another person but failed to prove same, there was concealment of income by assessee by virtue of op…

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

…rder of ITAT, Madras Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Smt. J. Mythili 35 taxmann.com 86, Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi vs. ACIT (2009) 125 TTJ 631 (Del.), Judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.J. Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169 (Kerala), Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Meeradevi (2012) 253 CTR 559 (Del.), Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shourya Towers (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT (2013) 359 ITR 523 (Del.) and Decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal vs. CIT (2012) 211 Taxman 178 (P&H) (HC). 17 ITA.No.2871/De…