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

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

iii)(f) of the Act. 3. That the learned DCITY has erred in raising a demand of Rs. 94,01,465/- towards short deduction of tax at source under section 201(1) of the Act and further levying interest of Rs. 37,52,031/- under Section 201(1A) of the Act on the alleged default under section 194A

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

3. The ld. Departmental Representative, reiterating the contents of the penalty order, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the impugned penalty without appreciating the observation of the ITAT given while deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, sustaining the disallowance of interest claimed to have been paid to ONGC. He submitted that the assessee has failed

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

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]

194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, payment of interest on which TDS was not deduction amounting to Rs. 5,94,317/- was added back to the income of the assessee. On this issue the assessee submission is as under: “total interest payable to M/s Swam Software Ltd. was Rs. 7,48,510/- on which

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

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds

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

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

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

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

CARGILL FINANCIAL SERVICES ASIA PTE LTD.- IN LIQUIDATION,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

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