THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue has no force and the same is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

120/- u/s 270A of the Act. The contentions of the appellant in brief are as under Sr. Contention in brief Paras of No. this submission i) No specific charge in the notice and therefore penalty 7-8 levied is untenable. ii) That penalty proceedings and quantum proceedings are 9 independent and that findings in the quantum proceedings, though relevant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

120 days, no income has accrued or arisen in India. The AO held that Article 14 only covers independent scientific, literary, artistic, educational and teaching activities. The payment made to Dr. U. Thiele does not fall in the above category. The payment made to him is for rendering technical services which falls in Article 12. Accordingly, he made disallowance u/s

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5235/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITA No.5236/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) Crew BOS Products Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, 37, Sector 4, IMT Manesar, Faridabad. Gurgaon. (PAN : AAACC3222F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Ashima

CREW BOS PRODUCTS LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5235/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ITA No.5236/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) Crew BOS Products Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, 37, Sector 4, IMT Manesar, Faridabad. Gurgaon. (PAN : AAACC3222F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Ashima

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. Third issue is regarding the disallowance of notional loss of foreign exchange amounting to Rs.18,28,47,127/- claimed by the assessee on actual basis treating the same to be pertaining to the previous year. During the AY 2008-09, assessee company has incurred a foreign currency loss of Rs. 18,28,47,127/- and the same loss being

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

4 M/s Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. 5. The Assessee being aggrieved against the levy of penalty, preferred first appeal before the learned Commissioner, who vide impugned order dated 13.06.2013 confirmed the levy of penalty by concluding as under: “5.3 Present Case In this particular case, the material facts regarding various additions, which have been made as bogus for levy

GAURAV GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

120/-, issue notice of demand- and challan.” Against the above penalty the appellant has come in appeal raising following 3. grounds of appeal “That the learned assessing officer had erred in law as well as on facts of the case in imposing the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 1549120/- i.e. @ 200% which

M/S ADITYA CHEMICALS LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

section 143(3) dated 26-03-2002 and additions made therein were also illegal, beyond jurisdiction and void ab-initio. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the additions made

M/S. DELHI SURGICAL & DRESSING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.5058/Del/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

4. ITO v. LATED SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MS. NEHA BHATI ITA No.40/JP/2014 ITAT JAIPUR 5. SHRI C. BASKER & SHRI C. VIJAYA KUMAR, v. ACIT ITA No.997 & 998/Mds/2012 ITAT CHENNAI 6. SHRI CHIMANLAL MANILAL PATEL v. ACIT ITA No.508/Ahd/2010 ITAT AHMEDABAD 7. ITO vs. Ajay Sharma, ITA No.995/Del/2016 9.1 He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-I, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ACI WIRELESS LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX : DELHI -V vs. RITED LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX: DELHI-V vs. RITES LTD.

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NEW DELHI vs. MIRA EXIM LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

CIT VI vs. VERIZON INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

NEW DELHI HOTELS LTD vs. ACIT

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come

CIT vs. NIRMAL BANSAL

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

B) BC(A) BC(B) E.S. MTDE S.M. their category is not written. DPE asked to speak to MD HARTRON and have the work done through experienced employees of HARTRON. CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400 PW-55 @pg. 50 part 2(II) & quoted by the Trial Judge in Part1/B pg.181 Two persons from the DPE office had come