YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

TDS. He further stated that earlier to that, there was no provision of levy of fees. Similarly, amendments were made in section 246A of the Act. The first issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that where the Assessing Officer had issued the intimation under section 200A of the Act, then the same is appealable under

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 04,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-4,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

275(1)(c) for penalties u/s 271E. • Property Plus Realtors V. Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 17371/2024, dated 20.01.2025)  The writ petition in Property Plus Realtors primarily examined the validity and timing of penalty initiation vis-a-vis satisfaction recorded in the assessment proceedings.  The decision pertained to direct initiation of penalty

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RUPA PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

275(1)(c) of the Act, is covered by the judgments of the predecessor bench of this Court. 3.3. In this regard he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, to contend that if the question

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RISHIKESH PROPARTIES PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

275(1)(c) of the Act, is covered by the judgments of the predecessor bench of this Court. 3.3. In this regard he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, to contend that if the question

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RISHIKESH BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

275(1)(c) of the Act, is covered by the judgments of the predecessor bench of this Court. 3.3. In this regard he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314, to contend that if the question

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd. reported in 451 ITR 108 (Delhi), wherein the following facts were prevalent:- (a) Quantum Proceedings were completed in December 2008 (b) Penalty Proceedings u/s 271D

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS and for failure to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within time prescribed in sub Section 3 of Section 200 or the proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 206 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CITA. The appeal was allowed and the penalty

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

TDS. He further stated that earlier to that, there was no provision of levy of fees. Similarly, amendments were made in section 246A of the Act. The first issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that where the Assessing Officer had issued the intimation under section 200A of the Act, then the same is appealable under

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

TDS. He further stated that earlier to that, there was no provision of levy of fees. Similarly, amendments were made in section 246A of the Act. The first issue raised by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that where the Assessing Officer had issued the intimation under section 200A of the Act, then the same is appealable under

SUNIL DANDRAYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd. reported in 451 ITR 108 (Delhi), wherein the following facts were prevalent:- Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos.8069 & 8070/Del/2019 Sunil Dandriyal vs. JCIT (a) Quantum Proceedings were

SUNIL DANDRIYAL,DEHRADUN vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, MEERUT

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Our aforesaid view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon (P) Ltd. reported in 451 ITR 108 (Delhi), wherein the following facts were prevalent:- Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos.8069 & 8070/Del/2019 Sunil Dandriyal vs. JCIT (a) Quantum Proceedings were