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

6. The assessment in question was set aside by the learned CIT by the order dated 20th March 2006 on the principal ground that requisite and due enquiries were not made by the Assessing Officer prior to finalization of the assessment by order dated 30th March, 2004. In this connection, the learned CI T. on consideration of the facts

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

6. The assessment in question was set aside by the learned CIT by the order dated 20th March 2006 on the principal ground that requisite and due enquiries were not made by the Assessing Officer prior to finalization of the assessment by order dated 30th March, 2004. In this connection, the learned CI T. on consideration of the facts

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

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

6. Against these arguments, the ld. DR extensively quoted the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash & Co. 130 STC 97 for the proposition that that non-issue of notice are mistake in the issue of notice and defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction

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

6. Against these arguments, the ld. DR extensively quoted the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash & Co. 130 STC 97 for the proposition that that non-issue of notice are mistake in the issue of notice and defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction

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

6. Against these arguments, the ld. DR extensively quoted the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash & Co. 130 STC 97 for the proposition that that non-issue of notice are mistake in the issue of notice and defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction

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

6. Against these arguments, the ld. DR extensively quoted the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash & Co. 130 STC 97 for the proposition that that non-issue of notice are mistake in the issue of notice and defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction

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

6. Against these arguments, the ld. DR extensively quoted the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash & Co. 130 STC 97 for the proposition that that non-issue of notice are mistake in the issue of notice and defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction

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

6. Against these arguments, the ld. DR extensively quoted the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash & Co. 130 STC 97 for the proposition that that non-issue of notice are mistake in the issue of notice and defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction

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

6. Against these arguments, the ld. DR extensively quoted the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (Madras High Court) and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subhash & Co. 130 STC 97 for the proposition that that non-issue of notice are mistake in the issue of notice and defective service of notice does not affect the jurisdiction

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

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

6 ITA No.2559/Del./2018 7. For facility of reference, proviso to clause (a) of section 275 (1) of the Act are reproduced as under :- “275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under

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