M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

REVELATION UNIQUE RETAIL AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 3 13.12.2022. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessed, made deposits of Rs.17,70,12,272/-. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 13.03.2023 made additions of Rs.17,70,12,272/- and Rs.5,92,32,502/-. 3. Against order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA SHARMA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 3 13.12.2022. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessed, made deposits of Rs.17,70,12,272/-. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 13.03.2023 made additions of Rs.17,70,12,272/- and Rs.5,92,32,502/-. 3. Against order dated 13.03.2023 of Ld. AO, appellant/assessee filed appeal

ANSHUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Ansul Bansal, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Tax, Circle-3, New Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Auqpb8298M (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed on 03.12.2022. The copy of the satisfaction note was provided to the assessee on 13.01.2023. As per the submissions made by the assessee, during the year under consideration the assessee has derived income from salary and other sources. On perusal of the bank accounts of the assessee and M/s Revelation Unique Retail

ROHIT GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

272A(1)(d) twice on 30.03.2022 and 30.08.2022 for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1). A summons dated Page 6 of 15 Rohit Goel [A.Y 2020-21] 131 of the Act dated 27.09.2022 was also issued to the assessee who appeared on 28.09.2022 without any documents and his statement was recorded on oath wherein he stated that he does

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

gain full control of AJL 01.03.2011 Payment of Rs. 50 Payment of Rs 50 lakhs was Lakhs to AICC for disclosed as an expenditure for loan assignment the object enshrined in MOA of YI 11. Before us, ld. Special Counsel, Shri G.C. Srivastava, on similar lines has summarised various steps which has also been discussed in the impugned assessment order

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

gains or loans. Not only that, there is a further inherent contradiction that such accommodation entries are in lieu of cash paid by the assessee to the so called entry provider but in the later part of the reasons, AO mentions that there is cash received by the assessee against the accommodation entry. He has not even verified the seized

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

gains or loans. Not only that, there is a further inherent contradiction that such accommodation entries are in lieu of cash paid by the assessee to the so called entry provider but in the later part of the reasons, AO mentions that there is cash received by the assessee against the accommodation entry. He has not even verified the seized

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

gains or loans. Not only that, there is a further inherent contradiction that such accommodation entries are in lieu of cash paid by the assessee to the so called entry provider but in the later part of the reasons, AO mentions that there is cash received by the assessee against the accommodation entry. He has not even verified the seized

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

gains or loans. Not only that, there is a further inherent contradiction that such accommodation entries are in lieu of cash paid by the assessee to the so called entry provider but in the later part of the reasons, AO mentions that there is cash received by the assessee against the accommodation entry. He has not even verified the seized

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

gains or loans. Not only that, there is a further inherent contradiction that such accommodation entries are in lieu of cash paid by the assessee to the so called entry provider but in the later part of the reasons, AO mentions that there is cash received by the assessee against the accommodation entry. He has not even verified the seized

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

gains or loans. Not only that, there is a further inherent contradiction that such accommodation entries are in lieu of cash paid by the assessee to the so called entry provider but in the later part of the reasons, AO mentions that there is cash received by the assessee against the accommodation entry. He has not even verified the seized

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

gains or loans. Not only that, there is a further inherent contradiction that such accommodation entries are in lieu of cash paid by the assessee to the so called entry provider but in the later part of the reasons, AO mentions that there is cash received by the assessee against the accommodation entry. He has not even verified the seized

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

d) reasons recorded nowhere communicates the description of how income escapement of Rs 2.93 crores is deduced and what are the components of the same like name of share subscriber entity, amount of share subscribed, date of share subscription , mode of payment and instrument no etc for want of which reasons have become non communicative; e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

d) reasons recorded nowhere communicates the description of how income escapement of Rs 2.93 crores is deduced and what are the components of the same like name of share subscriber entity, amount of share subscribed, date of share subscription , mode of payment and instrument no etc for want of which reasons have become non communicative; e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses