RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

2. That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering the e and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering

REKHA ,GURGAON vs. JCIT, RANGE 3, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

2 I.T.A. No. 815/Del/2022 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee sold industrial plot in Jalor, Rajasthan and received cash of Rs.40,000/- as advance. Penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) were initiated and an order was passed by the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Gurgaon, on 30.12.2019 under

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

gains on sale of land and building and could not substantiate his claim about purchase of another house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further

SONIA MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 69, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sonia Malik, Vs. Jcit, 229, Ground Floor, Range-69, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anqpm9150J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th Septemfebr, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Various Grounds Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.3,25,000/- Levied By The Jcit U/S 271D Of The It Act.

2. The assessee in various grounds has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty of Rs.3,25,000/- levied by the JCIT u/s 271D of the IT Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives salary income from Sant Nirankari Public School, New Delhi and ‘Income from

JAGDISH PRASHAD GUPTA,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT RANGE 1(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Jagdish Prashad Gupta, Vs. Jcit, 580/227, Bhartiya Colony, Range 1(1), New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh – 251 001. Pan: Ahbpg9897R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

2. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the penalty of Rs. 9,80,000/- u/s 271DA of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts as well as in law in confirming the penalty of Rs.9

COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-V vs. NIPUAN AUTO PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Who Had Substantially Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. In So Far As 2013:Dhc:2197-Db

2 of 8 the addition of ` 37,75,465/- is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition to the extent of ` 35,85,465/- which was essentially the unsecured loan received from Mr Alok Aggarwal. In so far as the loans and advances received from Smt Sadhna Aggarwal to the extent of ` 1,90,000/- (` 1,50,000 plus

COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-V vs. NIPUAN AUTO PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Who Had Substantially Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. In So Far As 2013:Dhc:2197-Db

2 of 8 the addition of ` 37,75,465/- is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition to the extent of ` 35,85,465/- which was essentially the unsecured loan received from Mr Alok Aggarwal. In so far as the loans and advances received from Smt Sadhna Aggarwal to the extent of ` 1,90,000/- (` 1,50,000 plus

DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI vs. PROVESTMENT SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. M/S. Provestment Circle-20(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 305. Rattan Jyoti Building, 18, Rajendra Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp8116H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2024

2 crores is shown towards sale of land. During appeal proceedings copy of acknowledgment of Income Tax Return for AY 2014- 15 as well as the copy of the computation of income was submitted as evidence regarding capital gains on the said land. Considering the above discussion, assessing officer is directed to delete addition on account of the transaction with

INDERJEET KAUR BHATIA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

2. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. 3. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 5,36,00,000/- on account of purchase of immovable property and mistaking

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

capital not unsecured loan. In respect of Rs. 22,00,000/-, received by the assessee as advance against sale of his property, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO on the ground that the impugned amount is in the nature of loan. Against

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

capital not unsecured loan. In respect of Rs. 22,00,000/-, received by the assessee as advance against sale of his property, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO on the ground that the impugned amount is in the nature of loan. Against