ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 37(1) of the Act and is duly covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 354(SC) and the principles laid down therein have been followed in Oil and Natural Gas Corpn Ltd. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 313. The Ld. AR further submitted that the decisions

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

section 37(1) of the Act and is duly covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 354(SC) and the principles laid down therein have been followed in Oil and Natural Gas Corpn Ltd. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 313. The Ld. AR further submitted that the decisions

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132 dated 24.04.2012, the Assessing Officer made additions on various grounds and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any specific nature of charge and without showing satisfaction in the assessment order about the nature of default committed by the assessee. The notice issued under Section 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) was also found

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of income would not arise. In other words, once\nthe registration is withdrawn, then the expression provided in Section\n13(1)(c) of the Act that such part of the diverted income shall get\ntaxed becomes otiose. That situation would never arise since the entire\nexemption would be denied once the registration is cancelled. Hence we\nare convinced that

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

1(Delhi). She also\nrelied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nKunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and\nKhoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane\nLtd. - [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC).\n19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of\nSpacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra) relates

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387/- and Rs 10,65,117/- were deleted. No appeal was filed in respect of the addition of Rs 1,31,27,456/- while

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387/- and Rs 10,65,117/- were deleted. No appeal was filed in respect of the addition of Rs 1,31,27,456/- while

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387/- and Rs 10,65,117/- were deleted. No appeal was filed in respect of the addition of Rs 1,31,27,456/- while

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387/- and Rs 10,65,117/- were deleted. No appeal was filed in respect of the addition of Rs 1,31,27,456/- while

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. He also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA and 271(1)(c). While adjudicating the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order, the additions of Rs 3,75,387/- and Rs 10,65,117/- were deleted. No appeal was filed in respect of the addition of Rs 1,31,27,456/- while

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

132(4). 13. In the present case, during the course of the statement made by the assessee, during the course of the search on 4 March, 2010, that she had lent Rs.16 crores in aggregate to three individuals during financial year 2009-2010. This was in response to a query by the revenue officials during the course of search when