ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty as section 271(1)(c) instead of 271C.” 2. Firstly we take ITA No. 1917/JP/2016. Regarding ground Nos. 1 to 4 of the appeal, brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of development of group housing projects for the last many years. A survey was conducted on 03/02/2010 to check

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION & CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

penalty of Rs.18,67,162/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, whereas the cross objection of assessee supports the impugned order. 2. The brief facts, leading to the present case, are that the assessee had paid interest to ONGC amounting to Rs.55,47,123/- without deducting tax on interest payments (TDS) as required

M/S. PEARL DRINKS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.3.2012 @100% amounting to Rs. 13,74,742/-. 3. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order 05.12.2013 dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Authorised Representative of the Assessee

ARROW MANPOWER SERVICES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings u/'s 271(l)(c) are further wrong as against the law and to the facts of the case as such the same my please be deleted because of being consequential to the illegal addition made and relief claimed there from. 11. That the appellant company assails their right to amend, alter, change

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Parsvnath Developers Ltd., Vs Jcit, Parsvnath Tower, Range-76, Near Shahdara Metro Station, New Delhi.. New Delhi – 110 032. Pan: Aaacp0743J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Paritosh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024

u/s 194I of the Act was issued and one of the beneficiaries (deductor) was the assessee. 3. The penalty order mentions that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity for explanation and allegedly nothing was brought before the AO to prove any circumstances for non-deduction or non-deposit of tax at source was beyond the control of the assessee company

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts and needs to be vacated.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

ACIT, CIRCLE-77(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Allowed

Bench: the Hon’ble Tribunal was penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO.

penalty order u/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961, while in this case subject matter of appeal is order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act passed by AO. 3. That the order of the CIT (A) being erroneous in law and on facts and needs to be vacated.” 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. PIONEER FABRICATORS PVT. LTD., MEERUT

In the result ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Circle-2, Meerut B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent) Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Acit, Vs. B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Circle-2, Meerut Pioneer Partapur, Meerut Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Pan:Aabcp3296R B-2, Saraswati Industrial Estate, Partapur, Meerut Pan:Aabcp3296R (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 (1) (b) of the ITAT 1961. Hence the action is uncalled for arbitrary and the imposition of penalty ought to be deleted.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of steel fabrication, trading in contract work. It filed its return of income on 30/09/2011 showing income

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

194A of the Act, which do not cover interest payment to bank within its ambit. Disallowance of interest expenses u/s 43B of the Act 27. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,02,57,683 made by the Learned AO under section

M/S STATE BANK OF PATIALA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271-C of the Act were directed to be initiated separately. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, after examination of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 19764 held that the NOIDA was a corporation established by the said

M/S DENA BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals filed by the appellant are allowed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271-C of the Act were directed to be initiated separately. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, after examination of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 19764 held that the NOIDA was a corporation established by the said

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHATTA TOWERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs M/S. Mahatta Towers Pvt.Ltd., Circle-16(1), 614, Plot No.54, Mahatta Towers, New Delhi. B Block, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Pan-Aaacm2109F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Koushlender Tiwari, Cit Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2024

194A on such assured return, treating the same as interest is therefore, allowable under section 36(1) (iii). Accordingly, addition of Rs 42,87,700/- is deleted and this ground is decided in favour of the appellant.” 16. The issue is with regard to the treatment of amount paid to the buyers as assured return. It is the case

M/S. SHREE BALAJI GRIT UDYOG,GURGAON vs. ITO, REWARI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Shree Balaji Grit Ito, Udyog, Near Sbi, Ward-3, बनाम/ Rao Prasad Sadan, Rewari Vs. Nh8, Dharuhera Dist. Rewari-123106 ("नधा%&रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.-Abmfs6461N

u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the disallowance 4 ITA No.5476/Del./2016 M/s Shree Balaji Grit Udyog of this amount was made by the AO without deduction of TDS and added back to the returned income. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the addition made by the AO sustained, which is under challenge before this Tribunal

JAI BHAGWAN,VPO BADSHAHPUR,GURGAON,HR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON,HARYANA

The appeal stands allowed and the concurrent findings of the AO and CIT(A) are hereby affirmed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrajai Bhagwan Vs. Income Tax Officer Vpo Badshahpur Income Tax Building Gurgaon Gurugram- 122001 Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amapb8989P Appellant .. Respondent

194A and previous decisions on the issue laid down the proposition that interest received as income on delayed payment of the compensation determined under Section 28 or 31 of the Acquisition Act is a taxable event being a revenue receipt. [Ref: Para 10 of the order]. 3. The interpretation of the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. RADIUS INDUSTRIES, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2015-16

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was imposed on 24.10.2017. Thereafter, the AR of the assessee filed reply dated 08.11.2017 whereby ITRs are attached with the confirmations of the parties except few. The AR of the assessee vide notice u/s. 142(1) dated 10.11.2017 was again specifically asked to file copy of ITR of parties whose ITR have not been filed

RADIUS INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2015-16

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was imposed on 24.10.2017. Thereafter, the AR of the assessee filed reply dated 08.11.2017 whereby ITRs are attached with the confirmations of the parties except few. The AR of the assessee vide notice u/s. 142(1) dated 10.11.2017 was again specifically asked to file copy of ITR of parties whose ITR have not been filed

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishieast End Apartments Cghs Ltd. Vs Ito 17, Mayur Vihar Phase-1, Ward-60(1) Extension Room No. 306 A, F Block, New Delhi Pin 110096 Vikas Bhawan Pan: Aaatt9792N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c).” 3. The assessee is a Group Housing Society. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of AIR/CIB information. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 32,07,292/- in the saving bank account and received payment of Rs. 8,39,423/- under Section 194A

CARGILL TSF ASIA PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals, preferred by the assessee, stand allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) against the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for failure to disclose true particulars of income. each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplement, amend, vary, withdraw or otherwise modify the ground mentioned herein above at or before the time of hearing. 8. At the outset ld. counsel for the assessee submitted