M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee on this score is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gain is affirmed. In the result, grounds raised by the assessee on this score is allowed.” 6. Since in the quantum proceedings it has been held that assessee is not deriving any business income from sale of land, and therefore, provision of Section 44AB are not applicable. 4 I.T.A. No.2144/DEL/2017 Consequently, the penalty levied u/s. 271B

SAHIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

271B of the Act by considering F&O turnover Rs.55,64,95,179/- as against actual F&O turnover of Rs. 29,28,652/- and Speculation turnover Rs.2,87,421/-. The assessee submitted that Section 44AB of the Act specifies the conditions for a tax audit section 44AB(a) which states that : “ If the total turnover from F&O trading

BABITA KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

capital gain of Rs.8,75,000/- and has shown total income of Rs.14,19,730/-. The assessing officer accepted the return of income. However, the assessing officer mentioned in the assessment order “penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income/filing inaccurate particulars of income.” The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 143(3)/153A

VIKAS AHUJA IN THE CAPACITY OF LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. KRISHAN GOPAL AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishivikas Ahuja Acit, In The Capacity Of Legal Heir Of Vs. Circle-19(1), Late Sh. Krishan Gopal Ahuja, New Delhi C/O. M/S. Arora & Bharat Associates, 3741, Iind Floor, Priya Hotel Building, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi Pan:Aflpa6325A (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain, commodity business trading and income from other sources. During the year, assessee had total sales consideration of Rs. 65281999/- and had claimed a loss of Rs 2368182/- as short-term capital loss which assessing officer did not allow to be carried forward as return of appellant was filed late. It is seen that appellant has shown trading profit from

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B of the Act without appreciating that the appellant is not required to maintain books of accounts in India/get the accounts audited. The above grounds is without prejudice to one another. decide this appeal according to law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B of the Act without appreciating that the appellant is not required to maintain books of accounts in India/get the accounts audited. The above grounds is without prejudice to one another. decide this appeal according to law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B of the Act without appreciating that the appellant is not required to maintain books of accounts in India/get the accounts audited. The above grounds is without prejudice to one another. decide this appeal according to law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee

ULO SYSTEMS LLC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B of the Act without appreciating that the appellant is not required to maintain books of accounts in India/get the accounts audited. The above grounds is without prejudice to one another. decide this appeal according to law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 B of the Act without appreciating that the appellant is not required to maintain books of accounts in India/get the accounts audited. The above grounds is without prejudice to one another. decide this appeal according to law.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee

SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-56(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271B of the Act alleging that assessee has not filed tax audit report in terms of provisions of Section 44AB of the Act despite the total value of transactions made in multi commodity exchange of Rs.69,17,25,042/- which far exceeds the limit prescribed for audit I.T.A. No.48/Del/2023 2 of the books of account under Section 44AB

VIKAS JAIN,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - 5, ROHTAK

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain that was not disclosed by the assessee. Hence, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 8,07,361/- as against the returned income of Rs. 7,11,450/-. 4. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal, thereby the learned

RAJIV JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs.10,17,650/-, is justified in the circumstances of the case?” 3. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the appellant-assessee as an individual engaged in commission agency business with a life insurance company, had filed return declaring income of Rs.5,84,146/-. 4. The return was taken

RAJESH SAHNI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal is allowed as indicated above for

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

gains as well as under the head Income from business and profession (speculative income). 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in treating the amount of Short Term Capital Loss and speculative loss of share transactions as per broker statement, as the business income of the assessee and levying tax thereon and creating the demand. The conclusion