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

section 40(3) of the Act. The learned CIT (A)-X, New Delhi had just repeated the findings of the assessing officer without examining the issue himself and without requisition of the assessment records, for which assessee company had made a request. 10. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi is erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. PLATINUM TOWERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

bogus purchases has also accepted the telescoping of personal expenses of the promoters/ directors aggregating to Rs. 16.43 crores. The relevant findings of the Settlement Commission read as under: "An action of Search / Survey was conducted on applicant u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act) on 17.02.2016. The applicant submitted letter dt. 11.3.2016 to Ld DD1T- Investigation Unit

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

bogus purchases has also accepted the telescoping of personal expenses of the promoters/ directors aggregating to Rs. 16.43 crores. The relevant findings of the Settlement Commission read as under: "An action of Search / Survey was conducted on applicant us 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Act) on 17.02.2016. The applicant submitted letter d. 11.3.2016 to Ld DD1T- Investigation Unit

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

bogus purchases resorted to by the assessee firm, the AO had re- opened the assessments of the assessee for the assessment years under dispute by issuance of notices u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. In the reassessment proceedings, after having considered the asssessee's submissions

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

bogus purchases resorted to by the assessee firm, the AO had re- opened the assessments of the assessee for the assessment years under dispute by issuance of notices u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. In the reassessment proceedings, after having considered the asssessee's submissions

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

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

purchase of shares. The Tribunal took note of CIT(Appeals) order that the AO had been furnished with various documents – affidavit, acknowledgement of returns, balance sheet and in some cases, bank statements and copies of cheques from various parties. The PAN No. and names of parties who had given the amounts and who had also confirmed by their affidavits, were