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

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such

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

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chand Bansal, (2010) 329 ITR 330 (Cal) held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such

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)

depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence

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)

depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence

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)

depreciation penalty is not levlable. The additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to inference of levying penalty. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an offer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and such offer is in consequence

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

132A on or after 1st January,1997. New provision of Section 158BFA had authorised levy of interest and penalty in certain cases. Conflicting and different stands taken pre and post enactment of 2018:DHC:2640-DB ITA No. 169/2005+connected appeal Page 49 of 77 section 158BFA by the Revenue have also contributed to the said confusion, which have resulted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation of Rs 40,35,877/- and allow set off in the next/subsequent years, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION 8. Apropos

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SURBHI SEN JINDAL, NOIDA

In the result, cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation'. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,15,914/- made by Assessing Officer on account of office expenses and salary. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.86,67,300/- made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI vs. RAMESHWER DASS, DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such approval can be brought under judicial

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132A, as the case may be, shall abate. It is clarified that the appeal, revision or rectification proceedings pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or requisition shall not abate. Save as otherwise provided in the proposed section 153A, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment

M/S. NOVA IRON & STEEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee-company is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

depreciation against the income of the current year. 4.3. Assessing Officer has stated in the order of assessment that the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 153C/153A, was filed well after the time allowed u/s 153A/153C r.w.s. 139(1) of the Act. 4.4. Section 139(3) requires the filing of return within the time stipulated

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132." 13.2 Section 69 read as under:- "Unexplained investments 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132." 13.2 Section 69 read as under:- "Unexplained investments 69. Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

132A in the second proviso to [sub- section (1) of] section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person.] " *********** " [Income escaping assessment. 147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

132A in the second proviso to [sub- section (1) of] section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person.] " *********** " [Income escaping assessment. 147. If the [Assessing] Officer [has reason to believe] that any income chargeable

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person.” 7.6.3 From the above, it is seen that the jurisdictional conditions and circumstances prescribed by the legislature

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person.” 7.6.3 From the above, it is seen that the jurisdictional conditions and circumstances prescribed by the legislature

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

132A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A shall be construed as reference to the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person.” 7.6.3 From the above, it is seen that the jurisdictional conditions and circumstances prescribed by the legislature