SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

III, New Delhi dated 12.05.2014. 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 4433/Del/2014, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

III, New Delhi dated 12.05.2014. 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 4433/Del/2014, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

III, New Delhi dated 12.05.2014. 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 4433/Del/2014, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

III, New Delhi dated 12.05.2014. 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 4433/Del/2014, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

III, New Delhi dated 12.05.2014. 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 4433/Del/2014, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

III, New Delhi dated 12.05.2014. 2. Since, the issue involved in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and being adjudicated by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 4433/Del/2014, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not holding that

ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

iii) Software purchase agreement (iv) Platform License Agreement (v) Deed of assignment for trade mark, domain agreement, IP License Agreement (vi) directors employment agreements (vii) Accounting charges etc. b) the disallowance of balance legal fee of Rs 21,11,3071- incurred towards drafting shareholders agreement and foreign direct investment is not free from doubt and capable of having two views

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income You are hereby requested to appear before me at Room No.364, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi at 11.00 AM/PM on 23.07.2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income You are hereby requested to appear before me at Room No.364, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi at 11.00 AM/PM on 23.07.2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income You are hereby requested to appear before me at Room No.364, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi at 11.00 AM/PM on 23.07.2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income You are hereby requested to appear before me at Room No.364, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi at 11.00 AM/PM on 23.07.2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty

HITESH CONSTRUCTION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCAL-06, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ………….. • Have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income You are hereby requested to appear before me at Room No.364, 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi at 11.00 AM/PM on 23.07.2014 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty

KISSAN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

iii) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of disallowance of expenses of one of the units of the assessee, M/s. Sushila Steels on the basis that the operations of the said unit had ceased to exist. The penalty for concealment so confirmed

SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

iii) Dated 29.08.2018 (iv) Dated 30.08.2018 (v) Dated 05.10.2018 (vi) Dated 09.11.2018 2.1 It is pertinent to note that assessee did not furnish requisite details which were called for via different notices issued from this office time to time. The first reply of the assessee was received only when penalty under section 271(1)(b) was imposed upon him. During

SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

iii) Dated 29.08.2018 (iv) Dated 30.08.2018 (v) Dated 05.10.2018 (vi) Dated 09.11.2018 2.1 It is pertinent to note that assessee did not furnish requisite details which were called for via different notices issued from this office time to time. The first reply of the assessee was received only when penalty under section 271(1)(b) was imposed upon him. During

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he had to pay penalty from 22 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the said provisions have to be held to be strictly construed, notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he had to pay penalty from 22 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the said provisions have to be held to be strictly construed, notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he had to pay penalty from 22 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the said provisions have to be held to be strictly construed, notice issued under Section 274 should satisfy the grounds