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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

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), Hon'ble ITAT has held that merely because losses were not allowed to be set off against normal business income and was treated as speculative loss, it was only a change

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

property sold of Rs.2706370/- which was reduced by Ld CIT on the basis of DVO report when appeal filed against the order to Rs. 283370 /- hereby deleted addition of Rs. Rs. 2423000/-. Section 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act says to impose the penalty if assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such

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

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from 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

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

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from 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

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

u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from 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

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.

house property, income from business or profession, 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

M/S. SURINDER KUAR SAHNI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. But, in the instant case, till levying the penalty, AO himself was not aware as to under which limb of the section 271 (1)(c) the penalty is being levied. 11. When we examine the case on merits, undisputedly it has come on record that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.2

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

house property is estimated at Rs. 1,31,761/-. Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are initiated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly solitary ground of appeal and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narsimha Charythe Asst Commissioner Of Dlf Ltd Vs. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Dlf Circle – 10 (1) Universal Ltd) New Delhi Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg New Delhi Pan Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property will result into penalty u/s 271 (1) (C) of the act. However, for the reason that the penalty

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

house. In this regard, the Assessing Officer asked to justify the entire long term capital gains in his hand while he was having ½ share in the said property. In this regard, the assessee clarified that the above property was purchased in F.Y. 1997-98 jointly with his father each having ½ share. He also submitted that ½ share in the property which

SUMEET SOOD,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the penalty levied is directed to be deleted

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2009-10 Sumeet Sood, Ito, Ward- 46(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Adv., New Delhi. Vs. F – 26/124, Sector – 7, Rohini, Delhi. Pan : Aicps 9872 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

property and income from other sources. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction on account of House Rent Allowance (HRA) of Rs.8,68,404/- u/s 10(13A) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has observed as under :- “Assessee was asked to furnish the necessary details regarding the payment of 3 house rent like copy of the rent