ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the facts and 10 circumstances of the case. This reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative holding that the Tribunal was justified in doing so." xi) ITA No. 393/2015 Pr CIT vs. Prashant Shrivastava "11. It is not the Revenue's case that

GAURAV GAUBA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14 , NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 153A and assessed the assessee’s income at Rs. 32,59,500/- by making addition of Rs. 4 31,65,000/- to the returned income of Rs. 94,500/-. In appeal, the learned CIT(Appeals) reduced the addition to Rs. 4,50,000/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

163/-. 8. We find that the section 40A(2)(b) has no application to income aspect of the assessee JV in the facts of the instant case. The AO has not brought any comparable figures to disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

163/-. 8. We find that the section 40A(2)(b) has no application to income aspect of the assessee JV in the facts of the instant case. The AO has not brought any comparable figures to disallow the expenditure, moreover with the structuring of the JV provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) are not attracted in the given facts

TRIP ADVISOR TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

163/- on account of Transfer Pricing was revised to Rs. 49,45,059/-. On the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment made, A.O. vide order dated 19.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) imposed penalty of Rs. 16,42,625/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the penalty order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter before

ACCORDIS HEALTH CARE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Accordis Health Care Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Central Circle-16, Ca, L-7A, (Lgf), South Extension New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach7405D

163 days in filing of the appeal is condoned in view of the Covid-19 situation prevailing during the period in which the appeal got barred. 5. The ld DR could not as such dispute certain facts with regard to sequence of events as under:- Date Event Pg. No. 15.07.16 Initiation of regular asstt. proceedings, P-l/asstt. order/2nd prior

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

u/s 271E and Learned CIT-(A) has erred in confirming the same. 4. That the orders of the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are bad in law as well as on the facts of the appellant’s case.” 3. On 05.12.2022 Revenue filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

u/s 271E and Learned CIT-(A) has erred in confirming the same. 4. That the orders of the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are bad in law as well as on the facts of the appellant’s case.” 3. On 05.12.2022 Revenue filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

271 AAB, penalty of Rs.3,18,00,375/- was imposed.\n9. Against assessment order dated 13.5.2016 and penalty orders dated\n25.11.2016, appellant/assessee preferred separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nwhich were dismissed vide separate orders dated 30.12.2016, 05.05.2017 and\n28.04.2017.\n10. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee has preferred above captioned three\nappeals.\n11. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

271 (1) (c) on the ground that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) by an order dated 30th December, 2004 confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, on second appeal the ITAT by its order dated 29th July, 2005 deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

271 (1) (c) on the ground that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) by an order dated 30th December, 2004 confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, on second appeal the ITAT by its order dated 29th July, 2005 deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer

CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

271 AAB, penalty of Rs.3,18,00,375/- was imposed.\n9. Against assessment order dated 13.5.2016 and penalty orders dated\n25.11.2016, appellant/assessee preferred separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nwhich were dismissed vide separate orders dated 30.12.2016, 05.05.2017 and\n28.04.2017.\n10. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee has preferred above captioned three\nappeals.\n11. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

271 AAB, penalty of Rs.3,18,00,375/- was imposed.\n\n9. Against assessment order dated 13.5.2016 and penalty orders dated\n25.11.2016, appellant/assessee preferred separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nwhich were dismissed vide separate orders dated 30.12.2016, 05.05.2017 and\n28.04.2017.\n\n10. Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee has preferred above captioned three\nappeals.\n\n11. Learned Authorised Representative

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tata Vs. Assistant Commissioner Teleserviceslimited New Of Income Tax Circle 76(1) Delhi Districtcentral Laxmi Taxation Department Nagar New Delhi 110092 M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 2A, Old Ishwar Nahar Mathura Road New Delhi 110065 (Appellant) (Respondent)

163 TAXMAN 355 (SC) in the present facts and circumstances as the tax on IUC payments have already been paid by the payees/ deductee-assessee the Appellant will only be liable to pay interest till the date of payment of taxes by the payees/deductee-assessee. 8. GROUND 8: That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the initiation of penalty

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. DEEPA TALWAR, 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

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

KAAJAL AIJAZ ILMI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2228 & 2229/Del/2018 & 7004 & 7005/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 & 2014-15 & 2015-16] Kaajal Aijaz Ilmi, Vs Acit, C/O-Rra Tazindia, D-28, Central Circle-20, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049. Pan-Aabpi4222R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, they will be taken up after disposing the quantum appeals for these two assessment years. 3. First we take appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2228/Del/2018 [Assessment Year 2014-15]. ITA No.2228/Del/2018 [Assessment Year 2014-15] 4. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation