ACIT CC-14, DELHI vs. DELHI SPOT BULLION TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

6)=5/(1+4) (7) (8)=5*100/ *100 7 2015-16 6445450 7370159 9247089 2016-17 1123000 1507290 4558750 21250000 2433750 18.22 21060615 11.56 00 28 0 0 1 The cash deposited by the appellant after demonetization is just 18.22% of the cash deposited before demonetization. The appellant had made cash sales even after demonetization and deposited huge cash

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

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance under Section 35D of the Act. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that ‘further also satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars to the extent’ as discussed in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 and thereby liable for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

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

disallowance under section 14A being a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Reliance in ITA NO. 68/2012 (Del) (HC) Relevant finding is as under: "6

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

c) of sub-section (1) of section 11.\n(Emphasis supplied by us)\n9. The Learned AR before us submitted that Clause (e) of Explanation\nto Section 12AB(4) of the Act per se is wholly inapplicable and could not\nhave been validly invoked in the facts and circumstances of the instant\ncase. The Learned AR submitted that Clause

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

section 271(1)(c) of the Act can not be levied. A copy of the judgement is enclosed for your Honour's ready reference (Annexure - 6). In view of the above submission, it is abundantly clear that merely because the claim of expenditure stands disallowed

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1 )(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35 being an incentive and having made to recognized institution under section 35 cannot come under the purview of provisions of section 271(l)(c), since it is neither

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1 )(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35 being an incentive and having made to recognized institution under section 35 cannot come under the purview of provisions of section 271(l)(c), since it is neither

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

1 )(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35 being an incentive and having made to recognized institution under section 35 cannot come under the purview of provisions of section 271(l)(c), since it is neither

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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed

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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed

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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed