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

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

272A. iv. In case of a statement on oath the oath should be administered by the AO. The form of oath/affirmation is stipulated in the schedule to section 6 of the Indian Oaths Act. The form of oath given is: “I do swear in the name of God/or I do solemnly affirm that what I shall state will

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

272A. iv. In case of a statement on oath the oath should be administered by the AO. The form of oath/affirmation is stipulated in the schedule to section 6 of the Indian Oaths Act. The form of oath given is: “I do swear in the name of God/or I do solemnly affirm that what I shall state will

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

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

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

GAUTAM THADANI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2004-05]

capital gain on the sale of 10000 shares from M/s Supreme Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. was declared. The AO asked the assessee about the genuineness of the sale and purchase of the shares in dispute, but the assessee did not prove the genuineness of the sale and purchase of shares. Therefore, the sale and purchase of shares of M/s Supreme

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

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