DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

house property, remuneration from firm, long term capital gains and income from other sources. Assessee has not filed his original return under section 139 for the assessment year under appeal. The assessee filed his return for assessment year under appeal only on 31.08.2016, in response to notice under section 153A of the I.T. Act issued on 22.08.2016. The A.O. issued

FASHION GROUP INTERNATIONAL,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

housing urban development authority. It is also not dispute that the assessee at the time of agreement paid entire consideration to the owner. As we have noted above that the registered sale deed was never executed in favour of the assessee therefore rights & title therein were never transferred from owner to assessee. It is also not in dispute that

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

Section 25(1)(a) Companies Act, 1956 23.11.2010 Incorporation of Authorised capital of Rs. • Young Indian 5,00,000 being 500 shares of Rs 100/- each as on 31.03.2011 Address of Registered • office was at the same property of AJL, i.e., 5A Herald House

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

Housing finance (Rs.34,50,000/-) – A credit institution. Not chargeable to tax. 5. Interest from Banks- call money (Rs.2,13,17,614/-) – Interest is not on ‗Loans & Advances‘ hence chargeable to tax. 6. Interest from Banks – certificate deposit (Rs.31,18,884/-) – 7. Interest from Banks-Bills rediscounting scheme (Rs.8,74,28,57) ‖ 3. The aforesaid additions were made subject matter

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

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

5A has not been shown to be satisfied. Hence, the penalty is not sustainable on merits either. I.T.As No.2631/Del/2018 & 811, 812, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943/Del/2019 13 16. Consequently, we set aside the first appellate order and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. In the result, the appeal

VIDYA EDUCATION INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

house tax would be the annual letting value where there is no standard rent. Therefore, the method applied by the Ld. CIT(A) by applying 8% of the investment is highly improper and not applicable to the Income Tax Act. Merely because the family member of Shri Vineet Nayyar controlled both the institutions by himself is no ground to reject

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Us, During The Course Of Marathon Hearing, Four Volumes Of Paper Books On Behalf Of The Appellant-Assessee Have Been Filed, Along With Two Separate Sets Of Paper 3

Section 25(1)(a) Companies Act, 1956 23.11.2010 Incorporation of • Authorised capital of Rs. 5,00,000 7 Young Indian being 500 shares of Rs 100/- each as on 31.03.2011 • Address of Registered office was at the same property of AJL, i.e., 5A Herald House

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. QUANTUM LAND & HOUSING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

5A of section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 which 2 ITA No.4251/Del./2011 are squarely applicable to this case and where it is clearly mentioned that income declared in any return of income furnished on or after the date of search, assessee shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such

THAR AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-25(2), DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithar Properties Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, M-5A Magnum House-2, Ward-25(2), Karampura Comm. Complex, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacct3981A (Appellant) (Respondent) Thar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, M-5A Magnum House-2, Ward-25(2), Karampura Comm. Complex, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacct8899F (Appellant) (Respondent)

5A Magnum House-2, Ward-25(2), Karampura Comm. Complex, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCT8899F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the two appeals of the two different assessee of same group

THAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO -25(2), DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithar Properties Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, M-5A Magnum House-2, Ward-25(2), Karampura Comm. Complex, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacct3981A (Appellant) (Respondent) Thar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, M-5A Magnum House-2, Ward-25(2), Karampura Comm. Complex, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacct8899F (Appellant) (Respondent)

5A Magnum House-2, Ward-25(2), Karampura Comm. Complex, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCT8899F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 20/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the two appeals of the two different assessee of same group