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

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

carried the matter, of levy of penalty, before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by stating that the construction of building was delayed by the contractor which was beyond the control of the assessee and the same was not a deliberate delay. The CIT(A) further noted that the assessee has not contested theaddition as agreed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

carry forward the same for set off of in subsequent assessment years, when the income arising from such transfer of unit is exempt u/s. 10(33). The Tribunal held that the source both capital gain and capital loss on sale of units of US64 is itself excluded and not only the income arising out of capital gain

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

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

forward trading in commodities. The A treated the transaction as speculative loss and therefore did not allow the loss. This disallowance was upheld by CIT(A). Thereafter, AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this disallowance. 5.3.4 In the case of DCIT v/s Shree Ram Electrocast (P) Ltd (20171 84 taxmann.com 63 (Kolkata-Trib

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S SUCON INDIA LTD, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

carry forward loss to Rs. 27,63,30,230/- against the claim of Rs. 25,94,45,470/-. In penalty order the assessing officer had reiterated the facts mentioned in assessment order. It is stated therein that by claiming set off, the assessee had tried to avoid due taxes on positive non-speculative income. The penalty u/s 271

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

carry forward of losses and depreciation as claimed in its revised return of income. In the result, GROUND Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Coming to GROUND no. 4 which pertains to deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 8,31,45,470/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

carry forward of losses and depreciation as claimed in its revised return of income. In the result, GROUND Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Coming to GROUND no. 4 which pertains to deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 8,31,45,470/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income

ACIT CIRCLE 25-(1), DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. , GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

carry forward of losses and depreciation as claimed in its revised return of income. In the result, GROUND Nos. 1 to 3 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Coming to GROUND no. 4 which pertains to deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 8,31,45,470/- made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SOMIC ZF COMPONENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5312/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Vs M/S Somic Zf Components Ltd. Central Circle-25, (Earlier Known As M/S Sona Somic New Delhi Lemforder Components Ltd.), B-59, (Lgf), Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacs4766Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain & Ashish Goel, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 03.06.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-29, New Delhi.

271(1)(c) of the Act on the carried forward losses which were lesser than the carried forward losses claimed in the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied the penalty

VISHNU KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 46(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2015-16 Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, 3762/64, Chawri Bazar, Ward-46(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aarpk3173D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 Order

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is being initiated separately. 12. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs.4,86,370/- (as per discussion in para 10 above). However, since there is business loss carried forward

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

carried forward from AYs 2002-03 & 2003-04 to the extent of Rs.56,84,41,016/- thus, the total income was assessed 2 | P a g e at NIL after giving set off of loss. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

271 (1 )(c) because positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses of earlier years. 10. K.P. Madhusudhanan VsCIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans