M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary to the settled position in law, as indicated above and the two decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal (supra) Housing

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed insofar as those grounds are concerned. " 13. The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned CIT. seems to be contrary to the settled position in law, as indicated above and the two decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal (supra) Housing

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

SMT. MANJEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

u/s 271(1)(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC) 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

u/s 271 (1 )(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.Com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC): 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) and argued that when there is difference of returned income between the return of income filed for any previous year in regular course of assessment proceedings, and the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A post search ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 7 then, the difference of income between the two returns (u/s

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) and argued that when there is difference of returned income between the return of income filed for any previous year in regular course of assessment proceedings, and the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A post search ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 7 then, the difference of income between the two returns (u/s

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) and argued that when there is difference of returned income between the return of income filed for any previous year in regular course of assessment proceedings, and the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A post search ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 7 then, the difference of income between the two returns (u/s

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) and argued that when there is difference of returned income between the return of income filed for any previous year in regular course of assessment proceedings, and the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A post search ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 7 then, the difference of income between the two returns (u/s

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) and argued that when there is difference of returned income between the return of income filed for any previous year in regular course of assessment proceedings, and the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A post search ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 7 then, the difference of income between the two returns (u/s

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) and argued that when there is difference of returned income between the return of income filed for any previous year in regular course of assessment proceedings, and the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A post search ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 7 then, the difference of income between the two returns (u/s

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) and argued that when there is difference of returned income between the return of income filed for any previous year in regular course of assessment proceedings, and the return filed in response to notice issued u/s. 153A post search ITA Nos. 6880 to 6886 & 7139/Del/2018 7 then, the difference of income between the two returns (u/s

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) discussed in the preceding paras. 19. The ld. AR for the assessee has further contended that the AO has wrongly levied the penalty on account of disallowance of AED credit as the same was not claimed by the assessee in its 14 ITA No.2559/Del./2018 original return. Undisputedly, claim of AED credit

M/S. C.S. DATAMATION RESEARCH SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, therefore, the same is also not sustainable. He accordingly 5 submitted that on all counts penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with the law and, hence, should be deleted. 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order

MAYASHEEL CONSTRUCTION,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice were followed. The Ld. DR further submitted that during the penalty proceedings and respective appellate proceedings assessee has not raised the issue of striking off of the limb of penalty in the notice. During the penalty proceedings and appellate proceedings, the assessee never raised objection that non mentioning