INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. ANOVA INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act on 31.08.2016. 5. Against the said order of penalty, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 05.05.2025, allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty by observing that since the addition is deleted, penalty u/s 271

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.

154 / 143(3) of the Act. 9. It is a fact on record that after passing the above rectification order by the A.O., the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. The very same addition has been made treating the sale consideration as Short Term Capital Gain vide order dated 27/12/2019 passed u/s

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NIRULAS CORNER HOUSE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated. 7. During the penal proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has filed rectification application u/s 154

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act.” Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. vs. ITO 3. Since in grounds of appeal Nos. 1.1 and 2, assessee has raised legal issues of jurisdiction and limitation thus the same are taken up first for consideration. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the draft Assessment Order was passed on 24/12/2018 by Assistant Commissioner

REGALIA LAMINATES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Regalia Laminates Mcd Vs Income Tax Officer Buliding, Ist Floor Db Gupta Ward- 62 (5) Road Paharganj, New Delhi- New Delhi 110055 Pan No. Aaifr7691F (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 of the Act dated 29- 03-2012 was issued in which AO has proposed rectifications to be made in the original assessment order. In the response of the notice the assessee has filed the reply dated 20-04-2012 which were accepted and no rectification was made by the AO. A notice u/s

APCA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961, whereas the appeal was filed against assessment order us 143(3) of the Act for AY. 2015-16 as has been clearly mentioned in the relevant column 2b of Form No. 35 furnished for appeal. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON vs. APCA POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961, whereas the appeal was filed against assessment order us 143(3) of the Act for AY. 2015-16 as has been clearly mentioned in the relevant column 2b of Form No. 35 furnished for appeal. 2. That on the facts & circumstances of the case

INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI

rectification order passed u/s 154 r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Act on 30.03.2023 wherein AO further made\ndisallowance of the amount claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act towards\nthe transfer of special reserve of INR 15,00,18,000/-. Accordingly,\nthe total income was finally rectified at INR 14,62,65,53,850/-. The\nassessee filed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 7. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return : Rs.4.485/- Add: (i) Claim of loss : Rs.1,01.33.791/ disallowed as discussed above (ii) Unexplained bank : Rs.9,86,97,514/- deposits as discussed above Total TOTAL Rs.10

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 7. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return : Rs.4.485/- Add: (i) Claim of loss : Rs.1,01.33.791/ disallowed as discussed above (ii) Unexplained bank : Rs.9,86,97,514/- deposits as discussed above Total TOTAL Rs.10

MANSAROVER HEALTH CARE (P) LTD.,ROHTAK vs. ITO, WARD- 3, ROHTAK

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

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be initiated for concealment as well furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” As per the details reflected in the P&L Account of the assessee which has placed at page-3,7 & 8 of the paper book, during the year, gross receipt of the assessee was Rs.1,95,54,024/- which includes the normal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJEDEV SINGH & CO.

The appeal stands dismissed

penalty. We think it appropriate to reproduce a passage from the order passed by the CIT(A) ? ?Every income which has escaped assessment cannot attract provisions of Section 271(1)(c). In fact the AO had initiated proceedings u/s 154 which clearly show that he had arrived at a considered conclusion that the matter lies within the ambit

LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

rectification order u/s 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 toRs. 18,57,18,810/- (Rs. 18,56,78,191+ Rs. 40, 619/-). 3. Therefore, the addition of Rs.18,57,18,810/- is hereby made to the total income of the assessee on account of TP adjustment. Addition of Rs. 18,57,18,810/- Penalty proceedings

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 30, NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD, HISSAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. Central Circle 30 15 Km Stone Delhi Road, New Delhi Hisar, Haryana – 125044 Pan No.Aabcp6765H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P N Barnwal, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 21.04.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :-

rectification order u/s. 154 / 147/ 153A of the Income Tax Act is hereby passed accordingly, making the correct calculation of tax and interest payable after giving credit of TDS and all taxes paid by the assessee.” 12. The above observations of the AO do not find any merit in the relevant provisions of the Act in as much

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act by applying the theory of ‗real income‘ which has already been decided by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. reported in 46 ITR 144 (SC) . In the said decision, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that :- ―In Chamanlal Mangaldas & Co.'s case (supra