DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowed Rs.5,77,02,769/- claimed as deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter observed in the assessment order that ‘I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars’ to the extent of this amount and therefore liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 41

A2Z MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowed Rs.5,77,02,769/- claimed as deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter observed in the assessment order that ‘I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars’ to the extent of this amount and therefore liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 41

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. CCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowed Rs.5,77,02,769/- claimed as deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter observed in the assessment order that ‘I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars’ to the extent of this amount and therefore liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 41

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowed Rs.5,77,02,769/- claimed as deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter observed in the assessment order that ‘I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars’ to the extent of this amount and therefore liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 41

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowed Rs.5,77,02,769/- claimed as deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter observed in the assessment order that ‘I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars’ to the extent of this amount and therefore liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 41

DCIT CC-2 , FARIDABAD vs. A2Z MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowed Rs.5,77,02,769/- claimed as deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter observed in the assessment order that ‘I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars’ to the extent of this amount and therefore liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 41

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowed Rs.5,77,02,769/- claimed as deduction under Section 35D of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter observed in the assessment order that ‘I am satisfied that assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars’ to the extent of this amount and therefore liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 41

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RESURGERE MINES AND MINERALS INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under Section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also note that against the quantum assessment where under deduction under Section 14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under Section

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

41, Noida\nb) The Sriram Millennium School, Sector 135, Noida and\nc) The Millennium School, Meerut\n4. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was\nconducted on 11-07-2023 in the case of PTC group companies. A\nconsequential search was also carried out in the case of the Assessee Society.\nThe claim of the Assessee

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2008-09 to 2010-11. ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 41 13(1)(c)] 3 Ad-hoc disallowance

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2008-09 to 2010-11. ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 41 13(1)(c)] 3 Ad-hoc disallowance

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2008-09 to 2010-11. ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 41 13(1)(c)] 3 Ad-hoc disallowance

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2008-09 to 2010-11. ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 41 13(1)(c)] 3 Ad-hoc disallowance

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 2008-09 to 2010-11. ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 41 13(1)(c)] 3 Ad-hoc disallowance

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

1,37,41,850/-; addition on account of disallowance u/s 43B of the Act; which according to the assessee consist of Rs. 88,00,001 gratuity 5 ITA No. 3052/Del/2014, AY:2008-06 M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. transferred to reserve account and Rs. 49,41,849 gratuity disallowed under section 40A(7) of the Act and c

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

41(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The assessee’s appeal against the order of the Tribunal is pending adjudication after the Hon’ble Delhi High Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT Court havings framed question of law in this regard. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

41(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The assessee’s appeal against the order of the Tribunal is pending adjudication after the Hon’ble Delhi High Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT Court havings framed question of law in this regard. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

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

41(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The assessee’s appeal against the order of the Tribunal is pending adjudication after the Hon’ble Delhi High Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT Court havings framed question of law in this regard. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income