DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

10,35,008/- for asstt. year 2005-06 and Rs. 15,20,262/- for asstt. year 2006-07 levied u/s 271(l)(c) o f I. T. Act. The penalties were imposed by the Ld. AO in respect o f claim made by the assessee u/s 801B o f I. T. Act in the original return o f income

M/S. SHEELA FOADM (P) LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

801B was not suo-moto offered for disallowance by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 2.3 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that suo-moto surrender of excess claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act through a letter, during the course of assessment proceedings did not partake

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

801B of the IT Act although furnished Form 10CCB, it was held that even where there was a claim by way of an application without filing a revised return and in such a situation, deduction could not be disallowed" The law developed, post Goetz (India)'s case, has made it abundantly clear that an assessee is entitled to make fresh

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

UFLEX LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 27, NEW DELHI vs. UFLEX LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for AY 2011-12 and subsequent

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

801B in respect of other income of Rs. 23,42,349/- out of total other income of Rs. 23,80,850/-comprising of amount recovered from customers for none submission of Form-C & misc. income and foreign exchange fluctuation and discount and holding it as part of profit of the industrial undertaking. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

section 801B(10) was restricted toRs.3, 19,714/-.” 4. On the aforesaid addition, penalty of Rs.2,30,58,990/- was imposed, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee summarized in brief

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

801B of the Act in view\nof the provisions of sub section (13) of section 80IB of the\nAct, that the audit report should be furnished along with\nthe return of income is a directory requirement and would\nstand satisfied if the audit report is furnished during the\ncourse of the assessment proceedings. The aforesaid\nposition of law has also

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

c) thereto are being reproduced hereunder: "Section 801B(10): 10. The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31" day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project

OMAXE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

c) thereto are being reproduced hereunder: "Section 801B(10): 10. The amount of deduction in the case of an undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before the 31" day of March, 2008 by a local authority shall be hundred per cent of the profits derived in the previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project

ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

801B and 80IC, as is evident from below summary under:- 5 i) It was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that at S. No. 30 of Form 10CCB, the requirement is to fill details of "Deduction under section 80-1/80- 1A/80-IB/80-IC (Strick out whichever is not applicable)". There is no field for certifying deduction u/s 80-IAC. h) Moreover

M/S. OAKLAND BOTTLERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2009-10 Oakland Bottlers (P) Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-13(1), 10/46A, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaco 4250B (Appellant) (Respondent)

801B. c) The assessee’s claim that the original filed on 30.09.2009 is not acceptable because the return filed on 30.12.2009 by the assessee is shown as belated return in the ITD system. Further, the acknowledgement of the original return is being reflected in ITD. The ITD system has also not allowed the deduction claimed u/s.80IB as 4 the return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

801B or under section IOC, as the case may be, exceeds ten assessments. (7) The provisions contained in sub-section (5) and sub- sections (7) to (12) of section 80-1 A shall; so far as may be, apply to eligible undertaking or enterprise under this section. (8) For the purposes of this section- (i) Industrial Area" means such areas