NIRMALA DEVI,BHIWANI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURGAON

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1402 & 1403 /Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Nirmala Devi Dcit Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani, Central Circle-1 Haryana Vs. Gurgaon Pan No.Acipd0132E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases is contrary to facts and evidence on record and thus unsustainable. 3.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in recording various adverse inferences which are contrary to the facts on record, material placed on record and, are otherwise unsustainable in law and therefore, addition so sustained is absolutely

NIRMALA DEVI,BHIWANI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURGAON

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1402 & 1403 /Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Nirmala Devi Dcit Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani, Central Circle-1 Haryana Vs. Gurgaon Pan No.Acipd0132E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus purchases is contrary to facts and evidence on record and thus unsustainable. 3.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in recording various adverse inferences which are contrary to the facts on record, material placed on record and, are otherwise unsustainable in law and therefore, addition so sustained is absolutely

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

purchase amount of Rs.21,05,78,920/- and Rs.10,44,42,381/-, respectively @ 1%, of this addition of Rs.31,50,213/- was made u/s 68 of the Act. In AY 2018- 19, addition of Rs.1,91,80,846/- was made as commission for providing accommodation entries. In AY 2021-22, addition of Rs.15,25,45,445/- was also made

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

purchase amount of Rs.21,05,78,920/- and Rs.10,44,42,381/-, respectively @ 1%, of this addition of Rs.31,50,213/- was made u/s 68 of the Act. In AY 2018- 19, addition of Rs.1,91,80,846/- was made as commission for providing accommodation entries. In AY 2021-22, addition of Rs.15,25,45,445/- was also made

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

purchase amount of Rs.21,05,78,920/- and Rs.10,44,42,381/-, respectively @ 1%, of this addition of Rs.31,50,213/- was made u/s 68 of the Act. In AY 2018- 19, addition of Rs.1,91,80,846/- was made as commission for providing accommodation entries. In AY 2021-22, addition of Rs.15,25,45,445/- was also made

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 , DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

purchase amount of Rs.21,05,78,920/- and Rs.10,44,42,381/-, respectively @ 1%, of this addition of Rs.31,50,213/- was made u/s 68 of the Act. In AY 2018- 19, addition of Rs.1,91,80,846/- was made as commission for providing accommodation entries. In AY 2021-22, addition of Rs.15,25,45,445/- was also made

SUMANGAL TECHPARK (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 24(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sumangal Techpark (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, 117, Hans Bhawan, Ward-24(3), 1 Bsz Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aalcs4760R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Of The Cit(A)-8, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First Of All, We Have Heard The Arguments Of Both The Representatives On Legal Ground No.1 Of The Assessee Which Reads As Under:- “3. The Initiation Of The Proceedings U/S 148 & The Consequent Order Us 147 Are Bad In Law As A) The Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 148 Are Contrary To Provisions Of Law B) The Mandatory Procedure Laid Down In The Act Has Not Been Followed. C) The Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Time Barred As Issued After 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year Where The Case Has Already Been Assessed U/S 143(3). D) The Approval Of Addl. Cit & Pcit Is Bad In Law & Mechanical Without Application Of Mind & Has Been Taken Without Bringing To Their Notice Material Facts Of The Case. E) The Information Has Been Collected Behind The Back Of The Assessee & The Assessee Was Never Confronted With The Same Nor An Opportunity Provided For Cross-Examination Of Jain Brothers, Alleged Intermediary & The Relevant Seized Material Relied Upon Has Not Been Provided To The Assessee.”

purchase and sale of shares, it did not disclose the real colour / true character of the transactions and, therefore, did not make a full and true disclosure of all material facts which was also overlooked by the AO, is not correct. The assessee disclosed the primary facts to the AO & also explained the queries put by the AO. It cannot

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

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

bogus long term capital gain and commission thereon respectively. The Assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings. Thereafter the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2018 imposed penalty of Rs. 9,02,488/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal