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

k) to section 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

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

k) to section 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

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

k) to section 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

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, 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