THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

4 of both the impugned orders. In the said submissions, the assessee submitted that with reference to the provisions of section 273B of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer did not consider to it necessary to refer the matter under section 271D or 271E to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, according to the learned

THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

4 of both the impugned orders. In the said submissions, the assessee submitted that with reference to the provisions of section 273B of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer did not consider to it necessary to refer the matter under section 271D or 271E to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, according to the learned

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect. Penalty u/s

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WASHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

4 Loan given by relatives on Sunday for safe custody and for use in business. No contravention of section 269SS takes place- ITO v. T.R. Rangarajan [2005] 279 ITR 587 (Mad.) 6.5 Cash Transaction made on Sunday. No penalty could be imposed in such a case, IW v. Narsing Ram Ashok Kumar[1993] 47 ITD 38(Pat) Transfer of money

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

4 Loan given by relatives on Sunday for safe custody and for use in business. No contravention of section 269SS takes place- ITO v. T.R. Rangarajan [2005] 279 ITR 587 (Mad.) 6.5 Cash Transaction made on Sunday. No penalty could be imposed in such a case, IW v. Narsing Ram Ashok Kumar[1993] 47 ITD 38(Pat) Transfer of money

MANU BALI,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2011-12

172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Delhi Supreme Court held that amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect 5. CIT vs. Gates Foam & Rubber

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

172 Taxman 26 (P&H) c) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [TS-936-HC-2012 (KAR HC)] d) DCIT v. Ms. AishwaryaRai [2007] 12 SOT 114(Mum.ITAT) e) Rai Industrial Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA 4862/Del/2013) [Delhi ITAT] 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, penalty order as well as order

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

172 Taxman 386 (SC) that provision of Explanation 4 appended to section 271 of the IT Act, 1961 as amended by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1-4-2003 is applicable with the retrospective effect. Therefore, the AO has correctly rejected the second plea of the appellate. Jet Lite (India) Ltd 6.5 In view of the above discussion

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

4 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others 154 dated 30th March, 2013 have been rendered infructuous. However, we find some merit in the assessee’s contention that the observation of learned CIT(A) in the order dated 8th December, 2014 wherein he has upheld the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 may cause prejudice to the case of the assessee

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

4 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others 154 dated 30th March, 2013 have been rendered infructuous. However, we find some merit in the assessee’s contention that the observation of learned CIT(A) in the order dated 8th December, 2014 wherein he has upheld the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 may cause prejudice to the case of the assessee

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

4 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others 154 dated 30th March, 2013 have been rendered infructuous. However, we find some merit in the assessee’s contention that the observation of learned CIT(A) in the order dated 8th December, 2014 wherein he has upheld the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 may cause prejudice to the case of the assessee

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

4 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others 154 dated 30th March, 2013 have been rendered infructuous. However, we find some merit in the assessee’s contention that the observation of learned CIT(A) in the order dated 8th December, 2014 wherein he has upheld the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 may cause prejudice to the case of the assessee

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

4 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others 154 dated 30th March, 2013 have been rendered infructuous. However, we find some merit in the assessee’s contention that the observation of learned CIT(A) in the order dated 8th December, 2014 wherein he has upheld the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 may cause prejudice to the case of the assessee

M/S. MODIPON LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO (TDS & SURVEY), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

4 ITA-1897/D/2012 & 5 others 154 dated 30th March, 2013 have been rendered infructuous. However, we find some merit in the assessee’s contention that the observation of learned CIT(A) in the order dated 8th December, 2014 wherein he has upheld the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 may cause prejudice to the case of the assessee

M/S. M & M MACHINE CRAFT (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

4 ITA No.2518/Del./2015 the assessee accepted aforesaid disallowance/addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, orders passed by the lower authorities and arguments addressed by the Authorized Representatives of both the parties to the appeal, the sole question arises for determination

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. M/S MUTHOOT FINANCIERS,NEW DELHI.

penalty imposed u/s 271-D of the I.T. Act in view of the IT Act.” 2015:DHC:1047-DB ITA No.336/2002 & connected matters Page 7 of 19 6. On further appeals, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, in short), was of the view that the effect that advanced made to the firm by one of its partners cannot be regarded

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest paid on the income disclosed before the Settlement Commission