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

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

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

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

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

B) to section 271 (1) provides deeming provisions that where assessee failed to substantiate its explanation & has also failed to prove its explanation as noted above is bonafide and that all facts relating to same and material to computation of total income have been disclosed by it, then it would be deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars

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

depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras)/[2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) where Hon’ble Madras High Court held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact

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

depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras)/[2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) where Hon’ble Madras High Court held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact

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

depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras)/[2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) where Hon’ble Madras High Court held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact

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

depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras)/[2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) where Hon’ble Madras High Court held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact

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

depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income 2. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras)/[2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) where Hon’ble Madras High Court held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact

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

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

depreciation had been upheld, yet the High Court upheld the order of CIT(A)/Tribunal for deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) by making the following observations: "There was no material or evidence to show that the transaction of sale and lease back was not genuine or was bogus nor was any material brought on record in the course

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271(1), before the proceedings are concluded. In the assessee's case, the penalty proceedings have been sustained not on the basis of any defects in the books of accounts but for some error which has been accepted by the assessee. As the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings, though the finding in assessment proceedings are independent proceedings, these cannot

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

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

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

271(b) of the Act is leviable. 1. Provisions of the Chapter XIV-B regarding the block assessment were introduced w.e.f. 01/07/1995 and this chapter ceased to apply after 31/05/2003 when section 153A was inserted in respect of searches conducted after 31/05/2003. Section 158BC of the Act provided for special procedure for block assessment in case of searches

M/S. OCHOA LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

depreciation on disallowance of FBT, PF & ESI respectively, out of which addition of Rs. 88,53,764/- has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of disallowance of FBT, PF, ESI and IT. The 3 ITA No.4967/Del./2016 AO initiated the penalty proceedings by way of issuance of notice u/s 274 read with section 271