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

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

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

VIKAS SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

151A of the Act and as such, the consequential reassessment proceedings are illegal and deserves to be set aside. 7. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 29.06.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as the same has been issued

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. INDEX SECURITIES & RESEARCH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs M/S Index Security & Research Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi. 287, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan: Aaaci2919K Co No.126/Del/2023 (Ita No.1957/Del/2019) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment No.2010-11 M/S Index Security & Research Vs. Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-18, 287, Tarun Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan: Aaaci2919K

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee has filed Cross Objections and has raised the following grounds:- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of the reassessment

INDEX SECURITIES & RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CC-18,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs M/S Index Security & Research Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi. 287, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan: Aaaci2919K Co No.126/Del/2023 (Ita No.1957/Del/2019) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment No.2010-11 M/S Index Security & Research Vs. Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-18, 287, Tarun Enclave, New Delhi Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. Pan: Aaaci2919K

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee has filed Cross Objections and has raised the following grounds:- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the initiation of the reassessment