TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Oriental Structural Engineers & Ors.(374 ITR 35) wherein it was held – “dismissing

M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

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

271B of the Act. 11. That the Ld. AO has erred in mechanically initiating proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.” 25. The facts relating to that appeal shows that assessee filed its return of income on 8/10/2010 at the loss of INR 6 0086170. The draft assessment order was passed on 30/3/2013 on the identical facts

SUMIT JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowance of this part of expense as bogus expense is sustained. The AO accordingly, is directed to allow the balance expense. Ground 5 is partly allowed. 9. With respect to ground No. 7 we find that the AO has made a protective addition of Rs 64,65,000/- as the commission income in the hands of four Firms, managed

SUMIT JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowance of this part of expense as bogus expense is sustained. The AO accordingly, is directed to allow the balance expense. Ground 5 is partly allowed. 9. With respect to ground No. 7 we find that the AO has made a protective addition of Rs 64,65,000/- as the commission income in the hands of four Firms, managed

SATWIK FEEDS,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 35(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

disallowance of this part of expense as bogus expense is sustained. The AO accordingly, is directed to allow the balance expense. Ground 5 is partly allowed. 9. With respect to ground No. 7 we find that the AO has made a protective addition of Rs 64,65,000/- as the commission income in the hands of four Firms, managed

ODEON BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Odeon Builders Private Vs. Acit Limited Circle – 19 (1) M-116, 2Nd Floor, Connaught Delhi Place, Central, Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaaco0155H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh.M. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

271B of IT Act ignoring the fact that the penalty order is barred by limitation within the meaning of sec 275(1)(a) of IT Act for the reason that the above order was required to be passed on or before extended date of 31.03.2022 and the above order although dated 15.03.2022 has never been served upon appellant. In view

ATIQ AHMED,HAPUR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

section 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-, imposed by learned lower authorities, it is noticed from the perusal of the assessment order itself dated 31.12.2019 that he had duly filed his belated tax audit report and therefore, it is an instance of delayed filing of tax audit report than that of non-filing thereof. I accordingly accept the assessee

ATIQ AHMED,HAPUR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

section 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-, imposed by learned lower authorities, it is noticed from the perusal of the assessment order itself dated 31.12.2019 that he had duly filed his belated tax audit report and therefore, it is an instance of delayed filing of tax audit report than that of non-filing thereof. I accordingly accept the assessee

ATIQ AHMED ,HAPUR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

section 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-, imposed by learned lower authorities, it is noticed from the perusal of the assessment order itself dated 31.12.2019 that he had duly filed his belated tax audit report and therefore, it is an instance of delayed filing of tax audit report than that of non-filing thereof. I accordingly accept the assessee

ATIQ AHMED,HAPUR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

Bench: BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

section 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-, imposed by learned lower authorities, it is noticed from the perusal of the assessment order itself dated 31.12.2019 that he had duly filed his belated tax audit report and therefore, it is an instance of delayed filing of tax audit report than that of non-filing thereof. I accordingly accept the assessee

ATIQ AHMED,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

section 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-, imposed by learned lower authorities, it is noticed from the perusal of the assessment order itself dated 31.12.2019 that he had duly filed his belated tax audit report and therefore, it is an instance of delayed filing of tax audit report than that of non-filing thereof. I accordingly accept the assessee

MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

271B and 271AA read with section 274 of the Act. 9. The Assessee prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/ or' modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 4. Ground Nos 1 to 4 pertain to the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act. 5. Brief facts of the issue are that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MS. PEARLS OF BEAUTY, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavavs. Acit, Pearls Of Beauty, Circle-33(1), 3107/29, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaafp5617N (Appellant) (Respondent)

271B shall be attracted. (ii) These returns are not to be accompanied with any other document including any statutory form or report of audit (other than the report under section 92E) which is otherwise required to be furnished before the due date or along with the return for making any claim. The provisions of the law shall be deemed

SAINI CO OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 834/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 836/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Saini Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Vs Cit(A)-16, Society Ltd., 2420-2421, Bazar New Delhi-110002 Kamra Bangash, A. G. C. R. Central Delhi, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabas8396K Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeal In Ita No. 834/Del/2024 For Assessment Years 2011-12, Arise Against The Cit(A)-16, New Delhi’S Order Dated 06.08.2019 Passed In Case No. 10333/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 & It’S Latter Appeal Ita No. 836/Del/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059607361(1) Dated 11.01.2024, In Proceedings U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No. 834/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2011-12 raises it’s sole substantive grievance on merits 2 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. that both the learned lower authorities have erred

SAINI CO OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. CIT(A)-16, DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 834/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 836/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Saini Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Vs Cit(A)-16, Society Ltd., 2420-2421, Bazar New Delhi-110002 Kamra Bangash, A. G. C. R. Central Delhi, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabas8396K Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeal In Ita No. 834/Del/2024 For Assessment Years 2011-12, Arise Against The Cit(A)-16, New Delhi’S Order Dated 06.08.2019 Passed In Case No. 10333/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 & It’S Latter Appeal Ita No. 836/Del/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059607361(1) Dated 11.01.2024, In Proceedings U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No. 834/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2011-12 raises it’s sole substantive grievance on merits 2 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. that both the learned lower authorities have erred

HARI OM KUMAR TAYAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

section 271B. He further noted that, during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has failed to produce books of account and relevant vouchers in support of its claim for expenses and accordingly, he disallowed

DHARAM SINGH ,U.P vs. PR. CIT BAREILLY , U.P

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowances noted above, the total income was determined at Rs.8,91,626/-. Accordingly, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. After completion of assessment, as aforesaid, learned PCIT called for and examined the assessment records. While doing so, he was of the view that in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not verified/examined certain

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. MR. RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Gupta, Ba- Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(1), D-304A, Vikas Bhawan, New 64, Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi Pan : Aaapg2929C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Date Of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 30/05/2011 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit(A) Has Erred In: 1. Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses To The Extent Not Audited By The Assessee Amounting To Rs.43,82,013/-; 2. Not Giving Opportunity To The Assessing Officer To Verify The Expenses; 3. Allowing The Expenses Without Verifying The Same At The Appellate Stage; 4. The Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Delete, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal.”

section 271B for non-compliance of the audit provisions and also disallowed the entire expenses of Rs.43,82,013/- claimed

SANJIV DUTTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-32(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryasstt. Yr: _2011-12

disallowance @ 50% of the expenses to the tune of Rs. 6,08,395/-, as claimed in his P&L A/c by the Assessee . 3.2 The AO also observed that case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the ground that the Auditor mentioned in the original return had denied to have conducted audit for the Assessee, though