GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd H84 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271(1

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchase and sale of shares and there was no relevance for travel to Singapore, Bangkok, Rome, London etc. by one of its Directors. The expenditure on foreign travel can by no means be considered as business expenditure. Further, no evidence has been furnished to prove the purpose of foreign travel to justify expenses. AO further observed that

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus expenses; Rs8,00,000 that was part of the surrendered sum of Rs 10 crores but had not been reflected as additional business income against any of the companies of the group; and Rs 8,21,575 as disallowance u/s 14A. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(l)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

purchases, making out of bogus bills, etc. He accordingly brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,72,775 by his assessment order.................. The ITO, by that order, Initiated action for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) Para-5: Sir Sadilal Sagar & General Mills case. (A.Y. 1958-59) The assessee company, which derived

SH. SWAMI SHARAN GARG,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

bogus, the evidence to prove that the assessee gave cash to purchase the said entry is absent. 7. That on page 9 para 7 of the assessment order the assessee has been held guilty of "furnishing inaccurate particulars", however on page 10 first para he has been held guilty of "concealment", Thus the charge against the assessee befitting the levy

SUNIL SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

271(1 )(c) of the Act could be levied where the revised return had been accepted and assessed at the hands of the appellant although the revised returns had been fled after a search under section 132 of the Act and after a notice had been under section 148 of the Act. v) Rajiv Garg 175 Taxman

PR. CIT -8 vs. SAMTEL INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

purchased for metal project had not been capitalized and was shown under the head 'Fixed Assets' as capital work in progress. No depreciation was ever claimed. Since the machine was not capitalized and had to be eventually written off, the assessee claimed the loss as a revenue loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted that there was a loss but declined

M/S. KRISHNA MARUTI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

purchases of two machineries and allowed 100% of the revenue expenditure. That the learned CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s claim that the entire expenditure was incurred on research and development. However, he held the assessee to be eligible for deduction u/s 35()1)(iv) rather than 35(2AB). Thus, learned CIT(A) allowed the deduction at the rate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

bogus purchases booked during the relevant financial year and disallowed u/s 37 of the Act by holding that they were not incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business. Further, the AO noted his satisfaction that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. GOYAL M.G GASES P. LTD.

The appeal is allowed; no costs

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

purchase invoices, details of payments, confirmation from parties (PCL and ALTOS) and details of lease rental, received and offered. The main thrust of his argument was that the mere disallowance of the claim of depreciation was inadequate to attract the levy of penalty; instead, what is needed for attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c) is that inaccurate particulars

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 11. Accordingly the Ld. Pr.CIT directed the Ld. AO to re-decide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 05.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to re-compute the income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

AMAR NATH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

purchase as 1980 for the purpose of indexation and after claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act for construction of existing residential accommodation, declared the long-term capital gains at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer by observing that the bills and vouchers furnished by the Assessee in support of the construction made by Assessee are bogus and fictitious and, therefore

SHRI ADITYA MALLA,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified. In that case, deduction under section 35D was claimed relating to public issue of shares. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty, holding that assessee had not concealed income. ITAT upheld order of Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MBIANS INTERNATIONAQL INC., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

bogus, as only entries have been received by the assessee in the shape of purchases, it is difficult to make out, as to how, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition made by the AO to 20%. Consequently appeal filed by the revenue is hereby 5 ITA No. 13-14/Del./2016 allowed by setting aside the findings returned