Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

255 CTR 225High Court2013#20134 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

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

ITA 2045/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [20131 30 taxmann.com 10 (Delhi)/[2013] 213 Taxman 20 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2013] 359 ITR 523 (Delhi)/[2013] 255 CTR 225 (Delhi) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that 'Escape route' from levy of penalty as provided by clause (2) to Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is available, when assessee, in his statement not only offers or surrenders to tax amount in question which is later assessed, but also complies with other conditions of having filed return 8 ITA No.2044…

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [20131 30 taxmann.com 10 (Delhi)/[2013] 213 Taxman 20 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2013] 359 ITR 523 (Delhi)/[2013] 255 CTR 225 (Delhi) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that 'Escape route' from levy of penalty as provided by clause (2) to Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is available, when assessee, in his statement not only offers or surrenders to tax amount in question which is later assessed, but also complies with other conditions of having filed return 8 ITA No.2044…

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

ITA 2558/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT [20131 30 taxmann.com 10 (Delhi)/[2013] 213 Taxman 20 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2013] 359 ITR 523 (Delhi)/[2013] 255 CTR 225 (Delhi) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that 'Escape route' from levy of penalty as provided by clause (2) to Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) is available, when assessee, in his statement not only offers or surrenders to tax amount in question which is later assessed, but also complies with other conditions of having filed return 8 ITA No.2044…

M/S Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5050/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 Vee Gee Industrial Enterprises, ACIT, Central Circle- 1, Plot No.90, Sector 24, Faridabad. Vs. Faridabad. PAN : AACFV 2248 P (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by Shri (Dr.) Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Agarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 02-03-2017 Date of pronouncement : 26-05-2017 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) (Central…

Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (255 CTR 225) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax