M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

nature of a document or books of a third party and such documents/books cannot be said to be the books of accounts/documents belonging to the Assessees and cannot, in the absence of corroborative evidence be relied upon to make additions in the hands of the Assessees. As held by the Hon‘ble Courts, presumption u/s 132(4A)/292C would

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

nature of a document or books of a third party and such documents/books cannot be said to be the books of accounts/documents belonging to the Assessees and cannot, in the absence of corroborative evidence be relied upon to make additions in the hands of the Assessees. As held by the Hon‘ble Courts, presumption u/s 132(4A)/292C would

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUBENI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 978/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Community Center, New Friends New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Ita No. 933/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Community Income Tax, Circle-6(1), New Delhi Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2020 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Depreciation 1,670,148 Gross Sales 46,043 Actual Bank Charges 21,411 Gross Sales - Actual Miscellaneous 19,842 Gross Sales - Actual Expenditure written off Total Expenditure 50,367,111 275,188,278 Total Profit 19,726,100 11,619,313 Operating Margin 27.05% 64.49% (OP/TC) Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. 9. The TP adjustments computed by the assessee

M/S. MARUBENI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 978/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Community Center, New Friends New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Ita No. 933/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Lotus Tower, Community Income Tax, Circle-6(1), New Delhi Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6413A Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2020 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Depreciation 1,670,148 Gross Sales 46,043 Actual Bank Charges 21,411 Gross Sales - Actual Miscellaneous 19,842 Gross Sales - Actual Expenditure written off Total Expenditure 50,367,111 275,188,278 Total Profit 19,726,100 11,619,313 Operating Margin 27.05% 64.49% (OP/TC) Marubeni India Pvt. Ltd. 9. The TP adjustments computed by the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

Natural Justice. These issues thus strike at the very root of the C.O. Nos.258,260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO matter and must be disposed of at the inception itself, even though the appeals are of the Revenue. 7.1 With respect to the grounds/additional grounds taken in the Cross Objections, we have carefully considered the same along

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

Natural Justice. These issues thus strike at the very root of the C.O. Nos.258,260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO matter and must be disposed of at the inception itself, even though the appeals are of the Revenue. 7.1 With respect to the grounds/additional grounds taken in the Cross Objections, we have carefully considered the same along

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the I T Act in the penalty notice. Moreover, assessee could also not establish that his interest were

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the I T Act in the penalty notice. Moreover, assessee could also not establish that his interest were

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the I T Act in the penalty notice. Moreover, assessee could also not establish that his interest were

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the I T Act in the penalty notice. Moreover, assessee could also not establish that his interest were

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

natural justice were followed. " In the assessment order penalty has specifically been initiated for concealment of income therefore there was no reason/occasion for the assessee’s interest getting jeopardised due to non specification of limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the I T Act in the penalty notice. Moreover, assessee could also not establish that his interest were

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

justice of the lower authorities. In fact it is assessee who is trying to seal itself for the misdeed conducted by it. Hence, Ground no 1 to 6 are dismissed. 19. Ground No. 12-15 are general in nature hence, they are dismissed. 20. Ground No 7 is on the bogus claim of depreciation

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

justice of the lower authorities. In fact it is assessee who is trying to seal itself for the misdeed conducted by it. Hence, Ground no 1 to 6 are dismissed. 19. Ground No. 12-15 are general in nature hence, they are dismissed. 20. Ground No 7 is on the bogus claim of depreciation

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

justice of the lower authorities. In fact it is assessee who is trying to seal itself for the misdeed conducted by it. Hence, Ground no 1 to 6 are dismissed. 19. Ground No. 12-15 are general in nature hence, they are dismissed. 20. Ground No 7 is on the bogus claim of depreciation

PEARL VISION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

justice of the lower authorities. In fact it is assessee who is trying to seal itself for the misdeed conducted by it. Hence, Ground no 1 to 6 are dismissed. 19. Ground No. 12-15 are general in nature hence, they are dismissed. 20. Ground No 7 is on the bogus claim of depreciation

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

naturally the argument of spending any money on alleged gratification also fails, as the bogus billing is stated to be the sources of the illegal gratification. iv. Even otherwise, rough loose sheet talks about the expenses and how it can be correlated as illegal gratification is not known. v. The date of email is 16/6/2010. The organization committee granted