PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

153B and 153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 14 revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

153B and 153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the ITA 463/2016 & CONNECTED CASES Page 14 revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section

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)

153B and 153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 1538 and 153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section

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)

153B and 153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 1538 and 153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section

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)

153B and 153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 1538 and 153C are intended to be a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the non-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter alia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section 153A takes the place of the original return under Section

M/S VEE GEE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

u/s 132(4) under various heads and has paid the due taxes and interest thereon before the assessment, the assessee is entitled to immunity from penalty 12 under Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act even though the statement did not specify the manner in which such income has been earned. 24. We find merit

ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaanand Kumar Bansal Vs Dcit 145, Bank Enclave, Central Circle Ii Lakshmi Nagar, Faridabad. Delhi. Aajpb0552D

153B (i)(b) of the Act, the AO Page 2 of 18 Anand Kumar Bansal also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act in respect of item nos. (iv) and (v) above i.e. on advance for land and share capital. 2.2 In response to the show cause notices u/s 271AAA, the assessee made five fold contentions before

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment or reassessment made under section 153A. It is also clarified that assessment or reassessment made under section 153A shall be subject to interest, penalty and prosecution, if applicable. In the assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 2702/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10) Rajendra Aggarwal Vs Dcit 23/5, Central Circle-5 Shakti Nagar New Delhi New Delhi (Respondent) Adpqa4147F (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. V. K. Bindal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2019

penalty order is silent on subject of undisclosed income. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has also not mentioned in the impugned notice that it is a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 AAA of the Act. The assessment order does not show that any approval u/s 153D read with Section 153B

KRISHAN LAL MADHOK,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08]

u/s 153A of the Act. 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Neeraj Jindal 79 TAxmann.com 96 had the occasion to address an identical issue. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court read as under: “17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher income

ASHOK GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleashok Gupta Vs Dcit House No. 114, Sector-15 Central Circle-1 Faridabad Faridabad Aahpg3179R (Appellant) (Respondent)

153B (1) (b) of the I.T. Act on 27/12/2010. After hearing the assessee, the income returned at Rs.59,50,860/- was accepted. During the course of search operation, the assessee made a surrendered of Rs.50,00,000/- which was incorporated by the assessee in his return of income under the head income from other sources. In the course of search

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

penalty twice under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on the inevitable failure of the Appellant to do so. It is quite unfathomable as to how the Ld. AO can expect the Appellant to furnish information which is not in his possession and to penalise for his inevitable failure to produce the same. The Ld. AO has totally failed

M/S. NAVDEEP JEWELLERS PVT.LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu & Shri Kuldip Singh

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1).” 10. Under section 271AAA(2)(i) of the Act, penalty @ 10% of the undisclosed income shall not be imposed if the assessee, “in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. An application have been filed on behalf of the assessee intimating therein that assessee got expired

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. An application have been filed on behalf of the assessee intimating therein that assessee got expired

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. An application have been filed on behalf of the assessee intimating therein that assessee got expired

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. An application have been filed on behalf of the assessee intimating therein that assessee got expired

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. An application have been filed on behalf of the assessee intimating therein that assessee got expired

SH. BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I,.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. 2. We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. An application have been filed on behalf of the assessee intimating therein that assessee got expired