NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

undisclosed income of aforesaid Rs. 10,00,00,000/-. This penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act was in addition to penalty levied U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act on the same amount of aforesaid Rs. 2,01,53,000/-. For A.Y. 2012-13, the AO had made a further addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- to the Assessment order

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

undisclosed income of aforesaid Rs. 10,00,00,000/-. This penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act was in addition to penalty levied U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act on the same amount of aforesaid Rs. 2,01,53,000/-. For A.Y. 2012-13, the AO had made a further addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- to the Assessment order

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

undisclosed income of aforesaid Rs. 10,00,00,000/-. This penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act was in addition to penalty levied U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act on the same amount of aforesaid Rs. 2,01,53,000/-. For A.Y. 2012-13, the AO had made a further addition of Rs. 63,00,000/- to the Assessment order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARKARAN DAS VED PAL

The appeal is dismissed

undisclosed income. Consequently, the surrender made by the assessee cannot be made the basis for levy of penalty under Section 158 BFA (2) of the said Act. 15. The learned counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadilal Sugar and General 2008:DHC:3032-DB submit that where a surrender

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

undisclosed income in block assessment or as a disallowance in the regular assessment need not be decided. Finding on genuineness

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

undisclosed income’. 51. The third question, question C, is answered in the negative; that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. Whether the Assessee is entitled to benefit under section 10(22)/10(23C) of the Act. 52. The next issue to be considered is whether the Assessee was entitled to exemption under Section

M/S. NARSI IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

SMT. TRIPAT KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishismt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner Of Income New Delhi Tax Pan: Aaapk8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in section 271AAA(2) are not met with. This is quite different from the penal provision under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which directs that if income is concealed or inaccurate returns are filed, which are disallowed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANGEETA MISHRA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

undisclosed income”. Thus, the AO has no jurisdiction to make the aforementioned additions under section 158BC of the Act. Thus, the addition of `1,72,000/- by the AO has been made devoid of jurisdiction, since the same was already disclosed, and had not been unearthed during the search undertaken for the block assessment. 32. The next item

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XIII vs. R.K.MITTAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

undisclosed income of MCC on substantive basis and in case of Mittal on protective basis. 9. The assessees preferred appeals against the orders of their respective assessments. These were disposed of by a common order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) held as under:- ―a) The proceedings under section 158 BC in the case of M/s.Tushar Stock & Share Brokers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TUSHAR STOCK & SHARE BROKERS P. LTD.

undisclosed income of MCC on substantive basis and in case of Mittal on protective basis. 9. The assessees preferred appeals against the orders of their respective assessments. These were disposed of by a common order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) held as under:- ―a) The proceedings under section 158 BC in the case of M/s.Tushar Stock & Share Brokers

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XIII vs. MITTAL CONSUL & CO

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

undisclosed income of MCC on substantive basis and in case of Mittal on protective basis. 9. The assessees preferred appeals against the orders of their respective assessments. These were disposed of by a common order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) held as under:- ―a) The proceedings under section 158 BC in the case of M/s.Tushar Stock & Share Brokers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TUSHAR STOCK & SHARE BROKERS P. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

undisclosed income of MCC on substantive basis and in case of Mittal on protective basis. 9. The assessees preferred appeals against the orders of their respective assessments. These were disposed of by a common order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) held as under:- ―a) The proceedings under section 158 BC in the case of M/s.Tushar Stock & Share Brokers

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income. Apart from this there is a disallowance of R. 74,741/- u/s 14A of the Act. After examining

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income. Apart from this there is a disallowance of R. 74,741/- u/s 14A of the Act. After examining

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed income. Apart from this there is a disallowance of R. 74,741/- u/s 14A of the Act. After examining