MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 10A of the income tax act, whether during the holiday period such losses incurred by the assessee can be set-off against other income of the assessee or not. 20. To this proposition the learned authorised representative referred Section 10A (6) (ii) of the act. The answer of the learned authorised representative was that it depends upon the character

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, in respect of quantum addition on account of addition to Book Profit U/s 115JB of I.T. Act. (4) The Ld. Counsel for Assessee has filed copy of judicial precedents in the case of M/s Neha Home Builders (P) Ltd. (supra), in which view was taken that the amount of Page

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

Capital Services India And Others Versus Addl. CIT, Rage 12, New Delhi And Others I. T.A. No. 2897/0el/2007, I. T.A. No. 2807/0el/2007 Dated - 10 June 2015 ITAT Delhi 2. Garware Wall Ropes Limited vs, Addl.CIT ITA No. 5408/Mum/2012 judgment dated 15/01/2014 3. EIH Associated Hotels Limited Vs. DCIT , Company Circle 11(1), ITA No. 1503/MDS/2012 ITA No.- 1531/Del/2017. M/s Resurgere

JAGDISH PRASAD BHARAT KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

capital gain exempted u/s 10(38) and treated it as income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same was accordingly added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

JAGDISH PRASAD AVDESH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

capital gain exempted u/s 10(38) and treated it as income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2014-15 u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same was accordingly added back to the taxable income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) can be imposed to assess the capital gain as per the provisions of section 50C/2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

u/s 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above discussion the profit from sale of shares and mutual funds is treated as business income instead of capital gain as declared by the assessee. The undersigned is also satisfied that the assessee by claiming business income of Rs.367,965,338/- [368782299 (assessed business income) - 816961 (declared business

SATPAL SAINI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 3(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 3743/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Satpal Saini, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1, Sector-53, Ward-3(3), Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bdrps9119R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Noida.

penalty of Rs.6,50,000/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of fan blades and other electrical components on job work. The assessee filed the return of income

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain referred in para 3.2 to 3.5. 5. That the learned AO has erroneously stated that the reasons mentioned in the order may be treated as satisfactory for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particular of income with respect to the additions made. 6. That

KARAMJIT SINGH DHANJAL,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

penalty of Rs.4,49,246/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.05.2011 by JCIT Circle 26(1), New Delhi for A.Y. 2008-09 ignoring the fact that the appellant was under a bonafide belief that the transaction in question gave rise to long term capital gain

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

u/s 271 (1 )(c) can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. CIT reported in 258 ITR 85 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High 4 Shyam Sunder Kansal Vs. ITO Court in the case

SAHIWAL INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

capital gain on sale of building in view of the provisions of Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted in the case of the assessee. The relevant finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under: “5.9 In respect of adjustment of capital gain made by the AO it is seen that the appellant had shown long term capital gain

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act at page 8 para 6 of penalty order concluding that "the the assessee case is squarely covered by Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1) of the Act, since the assessee has failed to substantiate his explanation & has also failed to prove that its explanation as noted above is banafide and that

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), if the capital gain is treated as a long term capital gain.” 3. Brief

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain for Rs.17,13,015/- is\nadded to the income of the assessee has not declared in its return. In\nview of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that\nthe assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of its\nincome, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s l passed some orders on the issue of manipulation of share market /or pas 271(l)(c) are initiated separately. riding accommodation entry of bogus LTCG. SEBI considering the inputs from pm (Addition of Rs. 25,57,377/ . ie 'i ax Department as well as from its own surveillance system and that of •■/ sv; . ■ ■ ■ - ip© se actions

MS. TRIPTA KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Tripta Kaur, Acit, Central Circle- 14, A-29, Friends Colony-East, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

capital gain and income from other sources. The group is also engaged in the real estate dealings. Besides above, Smt. Tripta Kaur is doing the business of purchase/ sale of painting/ art works/ sculptures etc. in the name and style M/s GALLERIE NVYA. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs.6,05,52,484/-. Subsequently