ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. RAJIV GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

demonetization, a search & seizure operation was carried out on 21.03.2017 on group cases of Agson Global and others including the assessee. The case of the assessee was centralized by PCIT, Delhi 2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there

ATUL KUMAR ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

demonetization, a search & seizure operation was carried out on 21.03.2017 on group cases of Agson Global and others including the assessee. The case of the assessee was centralized by PCIT, Delhi 2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2011-12 in the cases of

demonetization, a search & seizure operation was carried out on 21.03.2017 on group cases of Agson Global and others including the assessee. The case of the assessee was centralized by PCIT, Delhi 2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there

DAIRY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE - 7(1), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6. Further assessee has also filed following additional grounds of appeal :- 6 “2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the addition made in the assessment order dated 29.12.2019 passed

ROYAL REMEDIES PHARMA HEALTHCARE,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (A), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Royal Remedies Pharma Healthcare Vs. Addl. Cit(A), 2707/B, Floor 1, Sabzi Mandi, Ward 34(5), Civic Centre, Main Bazar, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aapfr6429R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 On The Following Ground:- 1(A) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,04,500/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act In Respect Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account In Old Specified Bank Notes During The Period Of Demonetization Period Between 9/11/2016 To 20/11/2016. B) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Details Of Persons/Debtors From Whom Realization Of Sale Proceeds Had Been Received In Cash, Had Not Been Produced Before The Aô Whereas

u/s 271 AAC of the I.T. Act in assessment order in respect of addition of Rs.5,04,500/- and Rs.2,00,000/- without recording proper satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 5 | P a g e 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 29,05,320/- in its bank accounts during

RAHUL GUPTA,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD-5,, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Rahul Gupta, Vs Ito, H.No.-99, Shakti Colony, Mall Ward -5, Road, Karnal, Haryana-132001. Karnal. Pan-Amlpg6159M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subhash Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2024

penalty proceeding u/s 271 AAC and 270A as is in not a case of unexplained income and only of deposit of sale proceeds into bank a/c. 12. The appellant prays that interest charged u/s 234A/2348 be also deleted as no addition is called for in this case and the asst. order is without assuming a valid jurisdiction.” 3. Facts giving

MANOJ KUMAR KATYAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-63(4), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: it against the order dated 10.02.2022 passed u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

271 E(2) of the Act. 3. That the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty on the erroneous basis that the appellant had repaid a loan in cash, ignoring the fact that the loan was settled from the proceeds of sales duly recorded and not disputed by the revenue

PROMILLA MATHUR,DELHI vs. AO, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Promilla Mathur, Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac D-55, Gulmohar Park, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Afkpm7548E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Alok Mital, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Ground:- 1. The Order Passed By The Ai/Cit(A) Is Bad In Law, Wrong On Facts & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. That In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ao/Cit(A) Has Erred, Both On Facts & In Law, In Assessing / Upholding The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,25,293/- As Unexplained Despite Producing Documents On Record.

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file her return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 despite making payment of Rs. 2,21,174/- against credit card of Kotak Mahindra Bank, investing RS. 12,00,000/- in mutual

MAN MOHAN AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZAIBAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on mere ground that sales tax authorities had accepted books of account and VAT was paid on such cash sales." Also, in a case exactly similar to the case of the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Priya Blue Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

SUNIL GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on mere ground that sales tax authorities had accepted books of account and VAT was paid on such cash sales." Also, in a case exactly similar to the case of the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Priya Blue Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

ITO WARD-51(5), DELHI vs. RAMESH CHANDER RAJPUT , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

penalty notices. Subsequently, he noticed that he has uploaded wrong assessment order in ITBA Portal and the above said mistake could not be rectified through the system, he has passed the corrigendum order within the limitation period and passed the same on 24/12/2019 and all other demand and notices, computation sheet etc. are not modified or changed. Considering the fact