Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajan and Co. (291 ITR 340)

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

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

ITA 7900/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 44A

…in respect of those additions in respect of which such satisfaction was not recorded in the assessment order or during the assessment proceedings. 5.1. Useful reference may be made to judicial precedents in the cases of CIT vs. Rajan and Co. (No. 1) [2007] 291 ITR 340 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd. [2005] 277 ITR 337 (Delhi), CIT vs. Auto Lamps Ltd. [2005] 278 ITR 32 (Delhi), CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Delhi), CIT vs. Super Metal Re-rollers 265 ITR 82 (Delhi), Everplus Securities and Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT [2006] 285 ITR (AT) 112 (Delhi) in support of the view taken by us…

TRILOK CHAND CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Trilok Chand Chaudhary Vs Acit 39, Gadai Pur, Mehrauli, Central Circle -26 New Delhi-110030 New Delhi Pan : Aaepc0683P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Pranshu Goel, Ca Assessee By: Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2018 Order Per Diva Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Sh.Pranshu Goel, CA

Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…eiterated by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in plethora of cases as under: • Diwan Enterprises 246 ITR 571 (Del) • Vikas Promoters 277 ITR 337 (Del) • Super Metal Rerollers 265 ITR 082 (Del) • Shree Bhagwant Fin Co 280 ITR 412 (Del) • Ranjan 8c co 291 ITR 340 (Del) • Manish Iron Store 263 ITR 484 (PH) • DhanjibhaiKanjibhai 189 ITR (Bom) • Rampur Engg. Co 309 ITR 143 (Del)(FB) It has been held in the following cases that recording of satisfaction for the AO in the assessment order is sine qua non for initiating penalty proceedings. Mere observations "penalty proceedings are being initiated separatel…

SH. VIKAS,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Vikas, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), Village Ghat, P.O. Pachli Khurd, New Delhi. Meerut (U.P.)

Section 1Section 1BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…) and reliance was placed upon the position of law as addressed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of New Soraphahia Engineering Company vs. CIT – (2006) 282 ITR 642; N.M. Subramanium – 97 ITR 228; D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT – 86 ITR 553 (SC); Ranjan & Company – 291 ITR 340 (Delhi); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. – (1998) 246 ITR 568; Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CIT-II vs. Praveen B. Gada (HUF) – 2012) 211 Taxman 166 (M.P.) dated 17.02.2011; and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory – (2013) 218 Taxman 423 dated 13.12.2012. It was…