DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

section 269SS of the Act, thereby making him liable for penalty provisions u/s 271D of the Act. (vi) Penalty u/s 271D amounting Rs. 16,66,833/-, Rs. 1,85,00,000/- and Rs. 2,38,00,000/- was thereafter imposed by JCIT, Central Range, Gurgaon in the case of appellant (s for the year under consideration, in the case

ASIAN CLOUSERS LTD( SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD),REWARI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S Asian Closures Ltd. Vs. The Dy. C.I.T (Since Amalgamated With Asian Circle 3(2) Consolidated Industries Ltd.) C.R. Building, 96Th Mile, Delhi Jaipur I.P. Estate, Highway, Village Bawal, New Delhi Distt. Rewari, Haryana

purchased or the services rendered. It is made clear that the provisions of section-40A(3) are not applicable to the cash advances. For this specific purpose the issue is restored to the file of the A.O. for re-adjudication.” 42. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us and contended hat that the Assessing Officer made an addition

DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S Asian Closures Ltd. Vs. The Dy. C.I.T (Since Amalgamated With Asian Circle 3(2) Consolidated Industries Ltd.) C.R. Building, 96Th Mile, Delhi Jaipur I.P. Estate, Highway, Village Bawal, New Delhi Distt. Rewari, Haryana

purchased or the services rendered. It is made clear that the provisions of section-40A(3) are not applicable to the cash advances. For this specific purpose the issue is restored to the file of the A.O. for re-adjudication.” 42. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us and contended hat that the Assessing Officer made an addition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SHRI SIDHDATA ISPAT (P) LTD.

Section 271D of the Act. 5. The Tribunal noticed that during the assessment proceedings, it had been contended by the assessee that an amount of Rs. 53,18,200/- out of the unsecured loans in the last year had been converted into share capital. This was stated by way of letter dated 01.12.2008. The assessee had also furnished a list

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

bogus expenses, as site development charges, for inflating the cost of construction. In addition to the four 2015:DHC:9873-DB ITA 422/2015 & other connected matters Page 6 of 23 companies forming the core of the SVP Group, warrants for search and seizure operations were also issued in respect of twenty other companies. 6. The assessing officer categorized

DAURAU FARM LLP,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshdaurau Farm Llp, Vs. Acit, C-96, First Floor Khirki Central Circle-Ii, Extention, South Delhi, Noida Malviya Nagar, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aapfd6458G Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025

section 271D of the Act was sought to be mooted. The assessment was completed by merely making the addition on account of incremental sundry creditors of Rs 19,91,511/- as stated supra. Before the Learned CITA, the assessee furnished the ledger accounts 7. of various major creditors for subsequent year i.e. Financial Year 2021-22 relevant to Assessment Year

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