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

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

penalty u/s 271(b) of the Act is leviable. 1. Provisions of the Chapter XIV-B regarding the block assessment were introduced w.e.f. 01/07/1995 and this chapter ceased to apply after 31/05/2003 when section 153A was inserted in respect of searches conducted after 31/05/2003. Section 158BC of the Act provided for special procedure for block assessment in case of searches

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

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

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

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

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

B), then though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in Section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as the Section 274 makes it clear that assessee

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

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

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

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 G METALLOY PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Central Circle, Pan: Aagcm5789D Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153B except with the prior approval of Joint Commissioner. ” 3.1 Whenever any statutory obligation is cast upon any authority, such authority is legally required to discharge the obligation by application of mind. The approval has to be statutory nature after due application of mind, it should be neither technical nor proforma approval

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SUBASH DABAS, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

section 153D of the Act has not been satisfied in both the cases and accordingly we hold that the all assessment orders are vitiated and thus same are void being bad in law. We, accordingly set aside the impugned orders of lower authorities and quash the assessment orders by allowing additional ground of the assessees in all appeals filed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for payment of penalty and not for the initiation of proceedings. 3.5 The assessee has to positively prove that there is a case of non- application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would