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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B S,\nZafar Marg,\nNew Delhi,\nPAN: AAGPG3909G\n(Appellant)\nACIT (1)(1),\nC R Building,\nVs. ITO, I.P. Estate,\nNew Delhi\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by None\nRespondent by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing 03/02/2026\nDate of Pronouncement 06/02/2026\nORDER\nPER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, J.M. :\n1. This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order

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

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

149 Taxmann 286 (Cal)  PCII vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. [2017] 88 Taxmann 445 (Raj) 21. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the decision relied upon by the assessee propound the principle that expense

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

149 Taxmann 286 (Cal)  PCII vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. [2017] 88 Taxmann 445 (Raj) 21. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the decision relied upon by the assessee propound the principle that expense

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

149 Taxmann 286 (Cal)  PCII vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. [2017] 88 Taxmann 445 (Raj) 21. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the decision relied upon by the assessee propound the principle that expense

M/S. AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

149 Taxmann 286 (Cal)  PCII vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. [2017] 88 Taxmann 445 (Raj) 21. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the decision relied upon by the assessee propound the principle that expense

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

149 Taxmann 286 (Cal)  PCII vs. Rajasthan State Seed Corporation Ltd. [2017] 88 Taxmann 445 (Raj) 21. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the decision relied upon by the assessee propound the principle that expense