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

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

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of 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

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

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of 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

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

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of 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

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

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of 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

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

274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of 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

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

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

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

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

274 r.w.s. 271 (l)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ,which is bad in law as it does not specify under which limb of section 271 (l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the penalty proceeding had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. That the appellant craves, leave

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 120181 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras)/12018| 403 ITR 407 (Madras) whereHon’ble Madras High Court held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 437968/–. Thus, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and therefore assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The first, second and third ground of appeal are on the issue whether the assessee is carrying on any business or not. First ground of appeal is with respect to the disallowance confirmed by the learned

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation of Rs. 437968/–. Thus, he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and therefore assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The first, second and third ground of appeal are on the issue whether the assessee is carrying on any business or not. First ground of appeal is with respect to the disallowance confirmed by the learned

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- claimed on Toll Road, (ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- under section

M/S. YUM! RESTAURANTS MARKETING PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2000-01 Yum ! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 12Th Floor, Tower D, Ward-27(4), Global Business Park, New Delhi. Mg Road, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacy1883E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company In Restaurant Business. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th December, 2000 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.99,81,920/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 8Th May, 2001. Subsequently, On The Basis Of The Report Of The Special Auditor, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3)/147 On 29Th December, 2006 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,54,61,031/-. However, After Allowing Carried Forward Business Loss & Depreciation Of Earlier Years, The Total Income Was Determined At Nil. The Assessee

depreciation of earlier years, the total income was determined at nil. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) against the various additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. However, there was not much relief and the ld.CIT(A) upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings

SAMPARK HOTELS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

274 read with section 271 (1 )(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271 (1 )(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - High Court held that matter was covered by aforesaid decision of Division Bench and, therefore, there

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack

LANDBASE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

274 ITR 336 (Mad)  CIT v. Hindustan Computers Ltd. : 233 ITR 366 (All)  ACIT and DCIT vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd: 131 TTJ 1 (ITAT (SB) - Chennai))  Treasure Island Resorts (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT : 90 ITD 814 (Hyd)  Akash Lavlesh Leisure (P) Ltd v. ITO: 78 taxmann.com 338 (Hyd.)  T.K. International Ltd. v. ACIT : 91 ITD 481 (Cuttack