RAJESH KAPOOR,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(1), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

disallowed by the AO. Nothing more remains when the concerned party clearly denies that there was any genuine transaction, and then the cross-examination request is of no help to the appellant. Reliance is placed on rationale in the following case laws:- 3 | P a g e "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of Rs.4,30,42,385/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and has erred in sustaining the same to the extent of Rs. 1,49,31,635/- and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principle of natural justice

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance of Rs.4,30,42,385/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and has erred in sustaining the same to the extent of Rs. 1,49,31,635/- and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principle of natural justice

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under: “ 36. As assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PHI SEEDS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and both the Rule 27 application of the assessee are allowed for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

disallowances, the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and noted in para no. 36, 38 and 39 of his order as under: “ 36. As assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the extent of Rs. 55,07,79,154/-, I am satisfied that it attracts penalty

SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REGD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION , DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

natural justice. Even the notice allegedly Dtd.05.03.24 was actually prepared on 15.03.24 and by interpolating the same as 05.03.24, it has been delivered to postal authorities on 16.03.24. 3. That the impugned order U/s.263 Dtd.29.03.24 has been passed without carefully going through the relevant asstt. order, without application of mind and on wrong facts, as is apparent from the fact

RACHNA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.29,71,941/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal as well as filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved, assessee

RACHNA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.29,71,941/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal as well as filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition made by the AO. 6. Aggrieved, assessee

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowed the amount of Rs. 10,97,08,028/- towards\ninfrastructure fund which was directly credited without crediting it to\nincome and expenditure account. Thus, sought for allowing the\nAppeal of the Revenue.\n5.\nPer contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the\nLd. CIT(A) has followed the order of the Tribunal in Assessee's own\ncase

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

natural justice. 4) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

natural justice. 4) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

natural justice. 4) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

natural justice. 4) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance

PROPERTY PLUS REALTORES,DELHI vs. PR CIT CENTRAL DELHI-2, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

natural justice and deserves\nto be quashed.\n\n7. Any other ground as deemed appropriate in the facts and\ncircumstances of the case which may be allowed by the Hon'ble\nITAT.\"\n\n8. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that PCIT has\nsummarily rejected the submissions made by the assessee without\nproviding proper opportunity of being heard

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. INDIAN HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

natural justice. 16. This principle has been reiterated in numerous judicial pronouncements, which have held that additions based solely on retracted and untested statements is legally unsustainable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following case laws:  CIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. [2023] 157 taxmann.com 207 (Supreme Court – 06.12.2023) 51. From the materials on record, we find that