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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

10 also,. As per the assessment order, the assessee offered a disclosure of Rs.1,56,00,000/- toward undisclosed income in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. Similar to AY 2008-09 supra, the aforesaid amount was included by the assessee in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The penalty proceedings

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

SMT. SUMAN LAKHANI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the penalty amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10 & 170/Del/2015 [Assessment Year : 2005-06] 37. Both the cross-appeals are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Meerut dated 20.10.2014 for AY 2005-06, challenging the levy of penalty' and cancellation of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The AO vide separate order- levied the penalty u/s 271

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(i) of I.T. Act; and are consequently, hit by Section 271AAA(1) of I.T. Act. Page 36 of 42 Fit for Publication ITA Nos.-3531/Del/2015 and four other appeals. (AM) (JM) M/s Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. (8.2) One of the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the NHPL was that no penalty can be levied

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai & Assessment Year:- 2006-07 Sh. Shyam Sunder Jindal Vs. Acit, Central Circle 30 12 A, Green Avenue New Delhi Sector D, Pocket 3 Vasant Kunj New Delhi 110 070 Pan: Aagpj 0184 N

u/s 142(1) of the Act. " A.Y. 2006-07 Sh. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi (Pages 1 to 3 of the Paper book) 1.2.5 On perusal of the impugned order, it is quite evident that the learned assessing officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the 1ncome tax Act, 1961 only on the basis that the appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

section 271(l)(c) as held by various decisions as noted in the penalty order? 3. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground o f appal raised above at the time o f the hearing. (B) For A.Y.2010-11, the assessee filed return showing loss of Rs. 10,98,42,458/-. The assessee started two housing projects

KUNAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

38,416/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act on account of additional income of Rs. 1,51,17,432/- offered by the assessee in his return of income filed u/s 153A while ignoring the facts, written submissions of the assessee for non- imposition of the penalty. Thus, the penalty so levied should be cancelled. I.T.A. No. 8163/DEL/2019