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

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

e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses what was the basis of treating Himanshu Verma as entry provider and what was the connecting link between Himanshu Verma and assessee here in as it is not mentioned in reasons that what the nature of operation conducted by revenue on Himanshu Verma and what were the key findings of said operation which were divulged

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

e) reasons recorded nowhere discusses what was the basis of treating Himanshu Verma as entry provider and what was the connecting link between Himanshu Verma and assessee here in as it is not mentioned in reasons that what the nature of operation conducted by revenue on Himanshu Verma and what were the key findings of said operation which were divulged

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

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

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

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

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income of the Assessee. VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income of the Assessee. VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income of the Assessee. VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income of the Assessee. VIII. On the facts and circumstances of the case