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

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

sections 2710 and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

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

Sections 2710 and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

Sections 2710 and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

Sections 2710 and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

Sections 2710 and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

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

sections 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee has not done any job work and no income has been shown although an amount of Rs. 16.25 lakh is stated to have been taken from a single party on a number of occasions. Finally, it has been recorded in respect of both the additions that the amount is treated

RAKSHITA PATEL ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 49(2), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed from the deduction under section 54 to cover any leakage of revenue. Therefore an amount of Rs 8,25,000/- {which is 5 % of Rs 1,65,00,000/-} is being added to total income of the assessee under the head long term capital gains to cover any leakage of revenue. Therefore I am of the considered view that

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. TV 18 BROADCAST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., Circle – 76(1) 414,1St Floor, Empire New Delhi Complex, Lower Parel Mumbai, Murtijapur, Maharashtra – 110 001 Pan : Aaccg 3666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it was not possible to argue that there was no liability to deduct tax at source. JCIT therefore vide order dated 09.05.2016 held that assessee was liable for penalty u/s 271C of the Act to the tune of Rs.58,26,193/- being the amount equal to the amount of tax which

ASIAN CLOUSERS LTD( SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S ASIAN CONSOLIDATED INDS.LTD),REWARI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S Asian Closures Ltd. Vs. The Dy. C.I.T (Since Amalgamated With Asian Circle 3(2) Consolidated Industries Ltd.) C.R. Building, 96Th Mile, Delhi Jaipur I.P. Estate, Highway, Village Bawal, New Delhi Distt. Rewari, Haryana

section 40(3) of the Act. The learned CIT (A)-X, New Delhi had just repeated the findings of the assessing officer without examining the issue himself and without requisition of the assessment records, for which assessee company had made a request. 10. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi is erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5

DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklam/S Asian Closures Ltd. Vs. The Dy. C.I.T (Since Amalgamated With Asian Circle 3(2) Consolidated Industries Ltd.) C.R. Building, 96Th Mile, Delhi Jaipur I.P. Estate, Highway, Village Bawal, New Delhi Distt. Rewari, Haryana

section 40(3) of the Act. The learned CIT (A)-X, New Delhi had just repeated the findings of the assessing officer without examining the issue himself and without requisition of the assessment records, for which assessee company had made a request. 10. The Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi is erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5