M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the Id. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for Page # 3 disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the ClT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the Id. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for Page # 3 disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the ClT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the Id. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for Page # 3 disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the ClT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty of Rs.60,77,308/-, imposed u/s 271(l)(c) on concealed income of Rs.3,61,09,972 is confirmed. The ground of appeal is thus ruled against the appellant. 7. As a result, the appeal is dismissed." (2.2) Aggrieved, the Assessee has filed this appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Page 11 of 21 Fit for Publication

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

133 (Ahd.) (SB), relied upon by the ld. Counsel, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the CIT (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the CIT (Appeals), the foundation on which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ARIZONA VENUTRES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and should have completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act rather than section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Not only there is no penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(b) in our case, there is no adverse comment against the assessee on the order sheet

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

133 (Ahd.) (58), relied upon by the Id. Counsel, the AD had initiated penalty proceedings for disallowance of loss as capital loss. This ground was not accepted by the ClT 10 (Appeals) as correct. It was held that in view of the finding of the ClT (Appeals), the foundation an which penalty was initiated has fallen down. Therefore, the penalty

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)© has become infructuous. Thus, same is deleted. 30. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 31. The aforesaid appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of provisions u/s 147 on similar grounds as taken in Asstt. Year 2006-07 and also addition

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)© has become infructuous. Thus, same is deleted. 30. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 31. The aforesaid appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of provisions u/s 147 on similar grounds as taken in Asstt. Year 2006-07 and also addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)© has become infructuous. Thus, same is deleted. 30. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 31. The aforesaid appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of provisions u/s 147 on similar grounds as taken in Asstt. Year 2006-07 and also addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)© has become infructuous. Thus, same is deleted. 30. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 31. The aforesaid appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of provisions u/s 147 on similar grounds as taken in Asstt. Year 2006-07 and also addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)© has become infructuous. Thus, same is deleted. 30. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 31. The aforesaid appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of provisions u/s 147 on similar grounds as taken in Asstt. Year 2006-07 and also addition

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)© has become infructuous. Thus, same is deleted. 30. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 31. The aforesaid appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of provisions u/s 147 on similar grounds as taken in Asstt. Year 2006-07 and also addition

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

penalty u/s 271(1)© has become infructuous. Thus, same is deleted. 30. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08 31. The aforesaid appeal pertains to assessment year 2007-08, wherein the assessee has challenged the validity of provisions u/s 147 on similar grounds as taken in Asstt. Year 2006-07 and also addition