SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Properties & Ind. Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that: That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

housing the college, hostel and to\nprovide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College.\nThe College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of\nKarnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be\nsaid that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being\nadmitted every year. Students are studying

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.' (ii) Explanation 2 to Section 195(1) of the Act :— 'Section 195 - Other sums: (1

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

1-4-2013: Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVH-B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (I) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

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

201 (Del) is directly on the issue. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bhartesh Jain, 235 CTR 220. The Hon’ble High Court in both the cases have unequivocally held that penalty levied on account of additions made due to change of treatment of business loss as claimed

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. THE INDIAN NEWS PAPER SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

201 and on clause (ii) of the Explanation to section 1.53 is of no avail of and cannot, assist the Assessing Officer to save the impugned order from the taint of crossing the period of limitation. In the result, I allow the plea of limitation raised by the appellant and therefore, ground Nos. 2 and 3 are allowed”' 9. After

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

SHAMIM IRSHAD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 77(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

201(1A) at Rs.67,200/- on the grounds of infringement of provisions of Section 194IA(1) of the Act for non deduction of tax while making payment for purchase of property. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the I.T.A. No.8740/DEL/2019 2 assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessee has purchased certain house