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)

149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

149 ITR 52 were distinguished observing that they were inapplicable in view of introduction of Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) and Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee had claimed that they had taken a premise on rent/lease and during the very first year of business itself the lease was surrendered. Therefore, no enduring business advantage accrued

SMS CONCAST AG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

149/- Tax on above Rs.36,26,752/- Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) Minimum 100% Rs.36,26,752/- Maximum 300% Rs.1,08,80,256/- Penalty Imposed Rs.36,26,752/- The minimum penalty of Rs.36,26,752/- is imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for not furnishing accurate particulars of its income. A notice of demand and challan

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE, NEAR MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 271F and section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not pressed being premature and hence dismissed. 30. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed 31. Grounds raised in ITA No.1961/Del/2024 are similar to grounds raised in ITA No.1960/Del/2024 decided by us in earlier part of this order. Therefore, our above decision

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

section 143(3) of the\nAct was completed on 17.03.2015 by accepting the return income.\nSubsequently, the case was reopened for the reason that appellant has\nsold immovable property for consideration of Rs. 1,91,00,000/- during\nfinancial year 2011-12. The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was\ncompleted after making addition

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s\n274 r.w.s.271F and section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not pressed being\npremature and hence dismissed.\n\n30.\nIn the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\nITA No.1961/Del/2024\n\n31.\nGrounds raised in ITA No.1961/Del/2024 are similar to grounds\nraised in ITA No.1960/Del/2024 decided by us in earlier part of this order

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s\n274 r.w.s.271F and section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not pressed being\npremature and hence dismissed.\n\n30. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\n\nITA No.1961/Del/2024\n\n31. Grounds raised in ITA No.1961/Del/2024 are similar to grounds\nraised in ITA No.1960/Del/2024 decided by us in earlier part of this order

CEB LLC (EARLIER KNOWN AS CEB INC.),UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Ceb Llc (Earlier Known As The Assistant Commissioner Ceb Inc.), 1201, Wildson Of Income Tax, Blvd. Arlington, Va 22209, Vs Circle- 1(2)(1), International United States Taxation E-2 Block, Civic Care Of Address Centre, Minto Road, New First International Financial Delhi-110002. Centre, Level-2 Plot No. C-54 & 55, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra, India. Pan- Aadct5119K Assessee Revenue

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are all independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to supplement, to cancel, to amend, to add and/or otherwise to alter/ modify any or all the ground(s) of appeal stated herein above on or before its hearing before your honor

L T FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

149/-\nTax on above\nRs.36,26,752/-\nPenalty U/s.271(1)(c)\nMinimum 100%\nRs.36,26,752/-\nМахітит 300%\nRs.1,08,80,256/-\nPenalty Imposed\nRs.36,26,752/-\nThe minimum penalty of Rs.36,26,752/- is imposed u/s.\n271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for not furnishing accurate\nparticulars of its income. A notice of demand and challan/\nITNA

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

penalty U/s 271 (1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein the assessee has challenged the proceedings initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 passed order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on the ground of limitation. The additional grounds of appeal are as under

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE -14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE (SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department

HIMANSHU MALHOTRA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. ASHOK MALHOTRA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Imposing Penalty. Page 2 Of 15

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated against Sh. Ashok Malhotra by issuing show cause notice dated 14/03/2012 it is also undisputed fact that on 30/06/2016 Sh. Ashok Malhotra passed away. The order of penalty came to be passed against a dead person on 31/03/2017. It is the specific case of the Department that the Department