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

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

Disallowance of business expenditure on account of non- deduction of tax on payment to resident payee …………………………………. (Not reproduced as not relevant) III. Fee and penalty for delay in furnishing of TDS/TCS Statement and penalty for incorrect information in TDS/TCS Statement As per the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, a deductor is required to furnish a periodical TDS statement

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

Disallowance of business expenditure on account of non- deduction of tax on payment to resident payee …………………………………. (Not reproduced as not relevant) III. Fee and penalty for delay in furnishing of TDS/TCS Statement and penalty for incorrect information in TDS/TCS Statement As per the existing provisions of the Income-tax Act, a deductor is required to furnish a periodical TDS statement

ER AUTO PVT LTD,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - (TDS) , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

272A(2)(j) of the Income Tax Act on account of delay in furnishing of Form 27C.” 4. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the additions made by AO u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act by holding that the assessee in default for not deducting tax on freight

ER AUTO PVT LTD,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - (TDS) , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

272A(2)(j) of the Income Tax Act on account of delay in furnishing of Form 27C.” 4. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the additions made by AO u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act by holding that the assessee in default for not deducting tax on freight

ER AUTO PVT LTD,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - (TDS) , ROHTAK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

272A(2)(j) of the Income Tax Act on account of delay in furnishing of Form 27C.” 4. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the additions made by AO u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act by holding that the assessee in default for not deducting tax on freight

ASHOK WASAN ,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of notices issued under section 142(1)/143(2) was issued to assessee. 6. Further, records in the form of Income Tax Return, 26AS as retrieved from system and bank statements given by assessee on 20.11.2019 have been perused. On further examination of the facts, a sharp increase

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

disallowance of Rs.4,78,80,000/- claimed as deduction u/s 54F has been wrongly made, contrary to the legal precedents by hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Balraj v. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 22 (Del)? 9. We now proceed to adjudicate the above questions framed by us with regard to the legal ground raised by the assessee and if need

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DWARKESH DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, M-77, 1St Floor, Vikash Puri, New Delhi Ward-10(4), Room No.199C, Vs. Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aaccd4952F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 272A(2)(c) of the Act. The Id. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt Sita Devi Juneja (2010) 187 Taxmann 96 to the effect that the outstanding creditors in the books indicate the acknowledgement of debts payable by the assessee and no addition

TALHA KHAN,MOHALLA AFGANAN PO AMROHA vs. ADDL.JT.DY.ACIT.NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2017-18 Talha Khan, Vs. National Faceless Mohalla Afganan Po Amroha, Appeal Centre (Nfac), Amroha-244221 Delhi Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Ejspk7379K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance has been confirmed rejecting the explanation given by the assessee in this regard. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in iaw and being admitted fact on record, the AO has wrongly presumed cash deposits of Rs. 1,14,57,570 as deemed concealed or unexplained income under section 69A/115BBE through net taking

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 139(4A) can be a cause for levy of penalty u/s 272A(2)(e) & not denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. VII. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in confirming the action of AO in taking Rs. 6,61,58,482/- as returned income

M/S ABAXIAL ARCHITECTS P. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 36(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of the bonuses paid to its shareholder-employees was allowable.” 15. So, in view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the case laws relied upon by the ld. DR for the Revenue are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently