YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,00,000/- PAID FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LOAN FROM AJL AS AN EXPENSE INCURRED TOWARDS THE OBJECTS 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO of not granting deduction of Rs.50,00,000/- paid by the Appellant for assignment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the by revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A), 1. XVIII, New Delhi dated 05.08.2011 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “i) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case

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

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

E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Appellant, M/s. Abaxial Architects P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi, qua the assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter alia that :- “1. That

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

MARKETHILL CORPORATE ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

section 143(3) hence the order is liable to be quashed full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing. 4. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and law by making the additions of Rs. 48,13,200/- under “Income From Business & Profession” i.e. treating the entire transactions as “unexplained expenditure” without taking the genuineness

M/S. PERFECT SPRAY PAC PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed and consequently penalty order stands quashed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Perfect Spray Pac Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’), by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi, affirming the penalty order dated 26.11.2012 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income