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

Penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act,1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nwithin the meaning of explanation1 to the sub-section (1) of the section\n271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated.\nAddition: Rs. 44,05,518/-\nThe issue on merits at the heart of the matter is allowability

SUBHASH GUJAR,JHAJJAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 292BB of the Act to buttress the contention that non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) would not vitiate the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. I find that the Assessing Officer has observed as under: “As per record, to enquire into the source of above deposits, various notices were issued from this office to the assessee but nothing

P M NARGUNAM,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 304/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) बनाम P M Nargunam, Acit No. 1, Santosh Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-6, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aaepn9976E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are further wrong as against the law and to the facts of the case. 17. That the appellant assails her right to amend, alter or change any grounds of appeal at any time even during the course of hearing of this instant appeal.” The assessee has raised the following additional

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

127 V. Bank statement of IDBI Bank from 01.03.2013 to 31.03.2014 128 vi. Intimation U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for '129-134 assessment year 2014-15 M/s Radha Ballabh Nest-build Private Limited i. auditors report and balance sheet and profit and loss account for 135-146 FY 2013-14 relevant to assessment year

NEW STAR SYSTEM SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-18(2), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was also separately initiated. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal confirming both the additions made by the AO. 5. Hence, aggrieved by the impugned order of the first appellate authority, the assessee is in appeal before

MODI ENTERTAINMENT LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty was to be levied on the tax assessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed minus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. Hon'ble Supreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the amount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271

GAJENDER SINGH JADON,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-57(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2006-07 Gajender Singh Jadon, Vs. Acit, Circle-57(5), C-2/785, Street No. 14, New Delhi. 2 Pushta Road, Sonia Vihar, New Delhi. Pan Ahipj6180B (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1X0 of Rs.4,36,060/- is arbitrary, unjust and illegal. 8. That the levy of penalty is illegal, unjust and not in accordance with law as the mandatory requirements of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act have not been met in the instant case. 9. That in the absence of satisfaction in the assessment order

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)

127 of the Act. Proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated by issue of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and served on the assessee through ITBA. In response, the assessee submitted relevant details and clarifications from time to time. The return of income u/s 139 of the Act was filed on 14.01.2022 declaring income of Rs.6

PTC ENERGY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is Allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

2. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty was neither validly initiated against the appellant and no proper satisfaction was recorded by the AO to initiate penalty. Hence the penalty order has been wrongly upheld by the Ld CIT(A). 3. That, in view

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

127 of the Act. The assessee filed return of income under Section\n139(4) of the Act for assessment year 2013-14 on 03.02.2015, declaring income\nof Rs.55,05,000/- whereas the time limitation for filing of return was on\n30.09.2013. Consequent upon search and seizure operation, notice under\nSection 153A of the Act dated 22.09.2015 was issued. The assessee

CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

127 of the Act. The assessee filed return of income under Section\n139(4) of the Act for assessment year 2013-14 on 03.02.2015, declaring income\nof Rs.55,05,000/- whereas the time limitation for filing of return was on\n30.09.2013. Consequent upon search and seizure operation, notice under\nSection 153A of the Act dated 22.09.2015 was issued. The assessee

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

2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there was no response from the assessee, he was constrained to decide as per the material available on record and finding of the Investigation Officer contained in the appraisal report. 5. AO noted that

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

2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there was no response from the assessee, he was constrained to decide as per the material available on record and finding of the Investigation Officer contained in the appraisal report. 5. AO noted that

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

2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there was no response from the assessee, he was constrained to decide as per the material available on record and finding of the Investigation Officer contained in the appraisal report. 5. AO noted that

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

2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there was no response from the assessee, he was constrained to decide as per the material available on record and finding of the Investigation Officer contained in the appraisal report. 5. AO noted that

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

2. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 06.08.2018. However AO noted that there was no cooperation from the assessee. He held that since there was no response from the assessee, he was constrained to decide as per the material available on record and finding of the Investigation Officer contained in the appraisal report. 5. AO noted that

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

127 of the Act. The assessee filed return of income under Section\n139(4) of the Act for assessment year 2013-14 on 03.02.2015, declaring income\nof Rs.55,05,000/- whereas the time limitation for filing of return was on\n30.09.2013. Consequent upon search and seizure operation, notice under\nSection 153A of the Act dated 22.09.2015 was issued. The assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ADVENTURE RESORTS AND CRUISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well Assessee’s cross objection both are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhdcit, Circle 1(2), Vs.Adventure Resorts Room No. 368, C.R. Building & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. I.P. Estate, New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan:Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.198/Del/2022 (Asstt. Year : 2014-15) Adventure Resorts Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(2) & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By :Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) initiated separately.” 4. Aggrieved, assesse preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance by observing as under:- 4 | P a g e “I have considered submission of the appellant and observation of the AO in the assessment order. It is seen that appellant has shown sales of Rs.3