PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault

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)

c) read with section 13(2) has triggered in the case of the assessee. In the result the ground No. 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed. 20. Coming to ground No. 2(a) and 2(b) which is against granting of advance to the contractor for the construction of the institute building was considered by the Assessing

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

depreciation and development rebate. The above claim was not accepted by the [TO and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The Court noticed in the aforesaid case that the appellant had made the claim after pursuing the expert legal advice and the same was clearly based on cogent, legal ground and there

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

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,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

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

13 SCC 369, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Dilip N. Shroff (supra). Thereafter, in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC) the Court clarified that Dilip N. Shroff (supra) stood overruled only to the extent that it imposed the requirement of mens rea in Section 271(1)(c); however, no fault

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

13) Copy of revised computation of income placed at pages 26-28 for subsequent assessment year 2012-13, where revenue from Lotus Panache project was recognized and the above expenditure was claimed as a deductible expenditure. 14) Written submissions dated 26/12/2013 as filed before the Ld. CIT(A) placed at pages 1-20 of the paper book. 15) Further written

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

depreciation on computer software 3. Simultaneously, penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated on account of concealment of income as well as for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee company. A detailed show cause notice dated 19.9.2013 was issued and served on the assessee company. The assessee vide reply dated 24.10.2013 prayed

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation. The Tribunal also upheld the contention of the appellant that the provisions of Section 44C would not be attracted and hence the disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Depreciation. 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Depreciation. 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Depreciation. 4. MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT [38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 ] Where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1 )(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve assessee of s. 271(1 )(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which