DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. LAKHANI ARMAN SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty was being levied and ld. CIT(A) has in fact erred in stating that furnishing of inaccurate particulars is interlinked with concealment of income without considering the binding nature of the legal precedents. 2. That in the connection the ld. CIT(A) has erred in presuming that the ld. Assessing Officer

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

120 TTJ (Bangalore) 361 where it was held that if the assessee surrenders undisclosed income and the assessee files return and pays taxes on it, then the penalty is not leviable. However, in the instant case, the assessee has not filed returns declaring the undisclosed income. The return filed under Section 139(1) did 2012:DHC:7381-DB ITA 170/2012

ZILE SINGH KASHYAP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Uszile Singh Kashyap Vs. Ito C/O. Gourav Sachdeva & Ward – 47(1) Co. Ca, A-8, Kewal Park New Delhi Extn., South Extn., New Delhi-110 033 Pan No. Ahfpk 1369 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023

120/- ws.271(1)(c) is unsustainable even on merits.” 4. The case file reveals that there is no appearance though the case was listed for hearing in the past. On the present date of hearing also there was no appearance from the side of assessee despite the service of notice by RPAD. The case file further reveals that notices issued

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12

B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12 Unitech Reality Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Circle-27(1), Basement, 6, Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi-110017. PAN- AAACR 4290 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri D.C. Garg, CA Department represented by Shri Dayainder Singh Sindhu

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. 5. Subject to above facts and findings, .the total income of the assessee is being computed hereunder:- Income as per revised computation of : Rs.15,38,400/- income Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(a) : Rs.2,00,20,395/- Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(b) Rs.1

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. 5. Subject to above facts and findings, .the total income of the assessee is being computed hereunder:- Income as per revised computation of : Rs.15,38,400/- income Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(a) : Rs.2,00,20,395/- Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(b) Rs.1

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. 5. Subject to above facts and findings, .the total income of the assessee is being computed hereunder:- Income as per revised computation of : Rs.15,38,400/- income Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(a) : Rs.2,00,20,395/- Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(b) Rs.1

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. 5. Subject to above facts and findings, .the total income of the assessee is being computed hereunder:- Income as per revised computation of : Rs.15,38,400/- income Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(a) : Rs.2,00,20,395/- Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(b) Rs.1

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. 5. Subject to above facts and findings, .the total income of the assessee is being computed hereunder:- Income as per revised computation of : Rs.15,38,400/- income Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(a) : Rs.2,00,20,395/- Addition as discussed on Para-3.1(b) Rs.1

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such penalty could be levied. The assessee also relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in Keshu Ramsay vs. JCIT (2006) 5 SOT 9 (Mumbai). 6.2 It was contended by the assessee that the impugned

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

271/- being foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee on payment of foreign exchange to BHEL as per contract for acquisition of capital asset from abroad treating the same as capital expenditure ignoring the provisions of section 37 as well as section 43AA of the Income Tax Act r/w ICDs-VI issued u/s 145(2) of the Act. 08. That

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

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

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

120/- by making an addition of Rs.2,27,000/- on account of unexplained cash commission expenses u/s 69C of the Act. 4. In penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act, the AO observed that it was found from the seized material and records that assessee had purchased property below the fair market value of the property and the value determined

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

4) The transfer of a case under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may be\nmade at any stage 37 of the proceedings, and shall not render necessary\nthe re-issue of any notice already issued by the Assessing Officer or\nAssessing Officers from whom the case is transferred.\nExplanation. —In section 120 and this section, the word \"case

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

section 5 and the third proviso thereto: "5. This Act shall apply to every business of which any part of the profits made during the chargeable accounting period is Mr. Nikhil Sawhney chargeable to income-tax by virtue of the provisions of sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

120 (Del.) has upheld the decision of Geofizyka Torun, which held that the existence of PE is a condition precedent for applicability of section 44BB of the Act. Para 10 thereof is relevant. 7.2 The Ld. AR refuted the Revenue’s view as to the applicability of section 44BB of the Act relying on the decision

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

120 (Del.) has upheld the decision of Geofizyka Torun, which held that the existence of PE is a condition precedent for applicability of section 44BB of the Act. Para 10 thereof is relevant. 7.2 The Ld. AR refuted the Revenue’s view as to the applicability of section 44BB of the Act relying on the decision

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

120 (Del.) has upheld the decision of Geofizyka Torun, which held that the existence of PE is a condition precedent for applicability of section 44BB of the Act. Para 10 thereof is relevant. 7.2 The Ld. AR refuted the Revenue’s view as to the applicability of section 44BB of the Act relying on the decision