PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

9) of the Act for which show cause notice was never issued to the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the decision of Hon'ble 24 of 35 ITA No. 224 & Ors. Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance reported

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

9) of the Act for which show cause notice was never issued to the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the decision of Hon'ble 24 of 35 ITA No. 224 & Ors. Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance reported

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

9) of the Act for which show cause notice was never issued to the assessee. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid Full Bench decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the decision of Hon'ble 24 of 35 ITA No. 224 & Ors. Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance reported

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

9 as discussed above, therefore, penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been separately.\n8. 3. Thus, it is seen that the AO had indicated that he had initiated\npenalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\nand for suppressing its taxable income but had not mentioned the\nspecific limb of section 271

JAR METAL INDUSTRIES(P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 68 particularly when onus which lied upon the assessee in penalty proceedings stood duly discharged accordingly, imposition of penalty is wholly erroneous, unjustified and bad in law. [Tax effect Rs.1,24,89,274/-] 4. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. [Tax effect 1,24,89,274/-] Brief facts

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

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

9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that revised return of income was filed by the assessee only upon search proceedings and also declaration of additional income is not voluntary. He submitted that the case of the assessee is falls under Explanation 5 to section 271

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

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

9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that revised return of income was filed by the assessee only upon search proceedings and also declaration of additional income is not voluntary. He submitted that the case of the assessee is falls under Explanation 5 to section 271

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

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

9. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that revised return of income was filed by the assessee only upon search proceedings and also declaration of additional income is not voluntary. He submitted that the case of the assessee is falls under Explanation 5 to section 271

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act specifying the particular charge was issued to the assessee. A notice dated 08.03.2013 has been placed on record by the assessee at page 39 of the Paper Book. For the sake of clarity, the same is reproduced herein below:- Date-08.03.2013 To, Sh. George Kutty C/o Oasis Tours Pvt. Ltd. C-40, Middle

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the facts and 10 circumstances of the case. This reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative holding that the Tribunal was justified in doing so." xi) ITA No. 393/2015 Pr CIT vs. Prashant Shrivastava "11. It is not the Revenue's case that

YOGENDER MOHAN RUSTAGI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Yogender Mohan Rustagi Vs Acit Central Circle -28 548/549 Katra Ishwar Bhawan Delhi Khari Baoli Delhi-110006 Pan No. Agupr9629J (Appellant) (Respondent)

9. The Ld DR has submitted that assessee was very well aware about the default and nature of the income. The legal issue raised by the assessee is liable to be dismissed since in notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, the AO has mentioned the section of the Act. The ld DR has submitted that assessee has participated

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of the assessee, if the self-assessment tax paid prior to notice issued u/s 148 is taken into consideration then there is no amount remains as tax sought to be evaded and consequently, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Authorized

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. * have concealed the particulars of such income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.” 6.1 After perusing the said notice

MUKESH KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

9,76,190/- found during search was part of cash balances of Rs 1,11,15,785.94as per books of M/s Classic Spares, but the assessee could not produce evidences. Therefore, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer was right in treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee and correctly levied the penalty u/s 271AAB

MANOJ MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

139 for all the years and disclosed the particulars of shareholding pattern, advances taken and given by the assessee company/individual in return itself. The accumulated profit also has been disclosed. Thereafter assessee filed return u/s 153A of the IT Act wherein also all the detailed facts and figures were disclosed in the return. The assessee's case is auditable

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub- section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 115WE or sub- section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier; (b) where he has made no such return, after the expiry

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee derives income from real estate business. On 11.12.2008, search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the assessee. Notice under Section 153A

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

Penalty (DRP). 2. The common issue arising in both the appeals relates to taxability of royalty income received by the assessee on subscribers units from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) located outside India and royalty income on infrastructure equipments. Since the facts involved in both the appeals are common, for the sake of brevity, we will discuss the facts as involved