DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

271(1)(c) not attracted, for merely making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case also, the claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for the sole reason that the assessee could not get the approval from DSIR till completion

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(l)(c ) of the Income-tax act, 1961 separately for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. to assessee” 22. The ld CIT(A) has held vide para No. 11.5 of this order that such advances given to the construction contractor do not violate the provisions of section

INSTITUTE OF HAEMATOLOGY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD- 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute Of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati4626P Assessee By : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Of Rs.68,598/- Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there is a presumption that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income, shall be deemed to be the income in respect of which particulars had been concealed or inaccurate particulars had been filed. He also observed that the assessee’s case was covered within the scope of furnishing inaccurate particulars

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

271(B) of the Act were also initiated. 6.8 In the meantime, on 30th March, 1999, the Assessee filed an application in the prescribed form with DGIT(E) seeking approval under 2015:DHC:8430-DB ITA 705/2008, 924/2009 & W.P.(C) 3797/2011 Page 8 of 71 Section 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the year 1998-99. 6.9 Aggrieved by the assessment

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

271(1)(c) have been separately initiated”. Appeal before the CIT (A) 32. The INC then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. The appeal was filed on 4th November 1997 along an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). In this application, it was stated that the dates for compliance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

271(1)(c) have been separately initiated”. Appeal before the CIT (A) 32. The INC then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. The appeal was filed on 4th November 1997 along an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). In this application, it was stated that the dates for compliance

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

271(1)(c) have been separately initiated”. Appeal before the CIT (A) 32. The INC then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. The appeal was filed on 4th November 1997 along an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). In this application, it was stated that the dates for compliance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly solitary ground of appeal and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narsimha Charythe Asst Commissioner Of Dlf Ltd Vs. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Dlf Circle – 10 (1) Universal Ltd) New Delhi Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg New Delhi Pan Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

1 was completed in earlier years however, tower 2 was still under construction during the year under assessment. It is completed in subsequent years. Assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration an agreement was executive with M/s C B Elliss Richards South Asia private limited on 28th of April 2005. In terms of the above agreement services were

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isamic Academy of Education &Anr Vs. State of Karnataka &Ors and interpreted that no Charitable Society can charge fee from its students in the course of providing education

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isamic Academy of Education &Anr Vs. State of Karnataka &Ors and interpreted that no Charitable Society can charge fee from its students in the course of providing education

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isamic Academy of Education &Anr Vs. State of Karnataka &Ors and interpreted that no Charitable Society can charge fee from its students in the course of providing education

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isamic Academy of Education &Anr Vs. State of Karnataka &Ors and interpreted that no Charitable Society can charge fee from its students in the course of providing education

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isamic Academy of Education &Anr Vs. State of Karnataka &Ors and interpreted that no Charitable Society can charge fee from its students in the course of providing education

ONCOR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on quantum disallowance of expenses of ₹ 86,66,260/- out of the expenses of ₹1,42,362,574/- claimed by the assessee. The assessee informed before the lower authorities that company was originally incorporated in the year 2004 under the name of K.K. Clinmed (P) Ltd. for providing medical and healthcare related consultancy

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

charitable trusts. 8. It is in this backdrop that the respondent/assessee’s assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act and its assessed income was pegged at Rs. 19,02,18,230/-. 9. Evidently, penalty proceedings were initiated against the respondent/assessee under Section 271(1)(c

DEHRADUN PUBLIC SCHOOL,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ITA No. 1387/del/2016 for assessment year 2011 – 12 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271 (1) (c) is illegal and bad in law. 9. The Assessing Officer/CIT(A) has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Appellant to place the evidence/details on record to substantiate its claim during the assessment proceedings. 10. That, the penalty proceedings have been initiated and imposed without any specific charges, hence, the same

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPIRITUAL REGENERATION MOVEMENT FOUNDATION OF INDIA,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

section. Two questions have been considered regarding the application of income (i) Where a trust incurs a debt for the purposes of the trust, whether the repayment of the debt would amount to an application of the income for the purposes of the trust? and (ii) Whether loans advanced by an education trust to students for higher studies would

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S PASUPATI NATH COMMR. P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S TRISHUL COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c