HARISH CHANDRA BATRA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain. Consequent to the addition, penalty of Rs.7,00,000 u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the AO. 3. We find that the page no. 11, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that “issue penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c).” 4. We also find that the para no. 5 of the penalty order dated10.02.2015 reads as under

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SUBHASH ROAD DEHADUN vs. M/S TIMES SQUARE, SAHASTRADHARA ROAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

CAPITAL A/C\n630849.81 CLOSING STOCK\n49702307.00\nHDB FINANCIAL SERVICES\n(AS CERTIFIED BY PARTNERS)\n22500000.00\nHDFC LTD\n16000000.00 CASH IN HAND\n10789-16.00\nAXIS BANK\n2103284.16\nIDBI BANK\n2427220.00\nHDFC BANK\n50000.00\nUNSECURED LOAN\n100000.00\nIAS PER ANNEXURE B)\n9950000.00 KOTAK MAHINDRA\n\nCURRENT LIABILITIES\nLOANS & ADVANCES\n& PROVISIONS:\n1748596.48 CHEQUES IN HAND\n2250000.00\nSUNDRY CREDITORS\n28522350.00

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We come to the “lead” assessment year 2010-11 herein involving the assessee’s penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019 wherein both the learned lower authorities have

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We come to the “lead” assessment year 2010-11 herein involving the assessee’s penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019 wherein both the learned lower authorities have

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We come to the “lead” assessment year 2010-11 herein involving the assessee’s penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019 wherein both the learned lower authorities have

AKSHAT BANSAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing)

271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively. 2. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. We come to the “lead” assessment year 2010-11 herein involving the assessee’s penalty appeal ITA No. 115/DDN/2019 wherein both the learned lower authorities have

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DDIT/ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Raoassessment Years: 2016-17

271(1)(c) of the Act. 16.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another 16.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and / or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing ofthe appeal.” 2. Ground Nos. 1

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there

SHRI CHHOTEY LAL VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 292C. 2.2 there was a clear finding of fact recorded by the Ld. AO in the assessment order that the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2007 did not materialize which has either been totally ignored or not appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.3 that the Ld. CLT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A(1

SHRI ADITYA VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A(1

M/S THDC INDIA LIMITED, RISHIKESH,RISHIKESH vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Capital & Financial\nServices Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 119 ITD 266 (Delhi) have held that there\nwas uncertainty regarding ultimate collection of interest hence\nassessee was justified in not showing the notional interest income\nwhich did not actually materialized during the year under consideration.\nDelhi High Court in CIT v. Metropolitan Financier (P.) Ltd. [1981] 5\nTaxman 216 (Delhi) have held

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DEHRADUN vs. POWER MACHINES, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

capital during the year. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed following grounds: “1. The Ld. AO has erred in laws and facts by computing the income of appellant at INR 104,546,281/- as against the loss reported by OJSC. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in laws

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration

SHRI PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain earned has been surrendered in the return filed u/s 153A.He has disclosed total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,000/- on sale of khasra no. 317 i.e. 1/3 rd share during the year under assessment and remaining share has been surrendered by aditya verma and chottey lal verma in their returns of income. This means that total sale consideration