DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

M/S. SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Saamag Developers Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle -10, New Delhi B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Central Circle -10, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4952R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Central Circle -10, New Delhi Ltd., B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aajcs4932K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs.7,03,450/- 4) The CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the appellant by treating a sum of Rs.4,62,093/- by invoking the provisions of sec. 2(2)(e) of the Act. 5) It is contended that the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable to advances made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 DELHI, DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

271D of the Act. It was informed that the matter in quantum\nwas still pending before the Ld. CIT(A) and thus, even otherwise the case\ncould not become time barred if the penalty order was passed on\n31.05.2024.\n3. We have heard the Ld. AR canvassing the grounds raised through\nRule 27 and we have heard

ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

disallowed for want of evidence and penalty proceedings were also initiated under section 270A of the Act for misreporting. Thus, the assessment order was passed making addition of Rs. 11,98,885/-. The total income was determined Rs. 13,65,92,825/- in the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 6. The assessment record in this case

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SHRI SIDHDATA ISPAT (P) LTD.

disallowed. Its appeal was allowed by the CIT (Appeals). The relevant part of the reasoning of the CIT (Appeals) is extracted from his order: “From the part of explanation reproduced by the AO himself in the assessment order, it is clear that the manufacturing had started towards the end of the August 05. There are a few instances of cash

SONIA MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 69, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sonia Malik, Vs. Jcit, 229, Ground Floor, Range-69, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anqpm9150J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th Septemfebr, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Various Grounds Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.3,25,000/- Levied By The Jcit U/S 271D Of The It Act.

271D of the IT Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives salary income from Sant Nirankari Public School, New Delhi and ‘Income from other sources.’ She filed her return of income on 18th December, 2012 declaring the total income of Rs.2,34,320/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SIDHARTHA SECURITIES AND TRADERS LTD

The appeal is disposed of

271D was passed in proceedings relating to assessment year 2001-02. The allegation was that the respondent assessee had taken unsecured loan of Rs.8,52,71,500/- from M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., New Delhi, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft in violation of Section 269SS of the Act. M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. had discharged

DURGESH AUTOFIN P.LTD,BIJNOR vs. PRCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

271D of the Act for the said loans received in violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. 5. The AO made an addition of Rs.3,77,000/- which was the amount received by the assessee from 9 different persons on account of share application money for the following reasons: “i) It is an admitted & indisputable fact that inter

CIT vs. SARLA FABRICS PVT LTD

disallowance i.e. under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, this Court was of the view that where there is a difference of opinion either 2012:DHC:4457-DB ITA-788/2011 Page 3 between the different Benches of the Tribunal or the High Courts, which is finally settled by the pending judgment of the Supreme Court

NEW VIDEO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Video Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, C/0. Nd Kapur & Co, Ca, 2-A, Circle-13(1), Vs. Shanker Market Cannaught Circus, Cr Building, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacn0155G (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, New Video Pvt. Ltd, Circle-13(1), C/0. Nd Kapur & Co, Ca, 2-A, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi Shanker Market Cannaught Circus, New Delhi Pan:Aaacn0155G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 5078564/- made by the AO on account of unconfimed balances of sundry creditors.” 4. The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are against the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 269SS read with section 271D

NICE INTERNATIONAL LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2529/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Nice International Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 194B, Ramesh Market, Ward-13(2), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn9682L Assessee By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024

271D. The provisions invoked by the Ld. Commissioner applied to loans and deposits and not to share application money. The addition of Rs. 24,88,500 being cash contribution to share capital by the following has therefore wrongly been disallowed: a. Aditya Mathur 16,64,000 b. Parasuram Ram Behara 4,35,500 2 Nice International Ltd. c. Anima Mathur

SNS PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-22(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961". The assessee had further argued that even in the said notice, the 'CHARGE' was not specified, as such it was not clear as to whether it was for concealing the particulars of its income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. However, the learned CIT(A) had arbitrarily rejected the assessee

SUMIT JUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

disallowance by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act amounting to Rs. 82,341/-, thus assessed income at Rs. 28,52,020/-. Aggrieved against this 3 the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act for violation