M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

u/s 133 (6) of the Income Tax Act were sent to them to confirm their credit balances. All the letters have been received back with the postal remarks “Incomplete address”. The assessee was apprised of the position on 17.03.98 and he was again provided an opportunity to furnish the confirmation of these trade creditors. Thereafter, another opportunity was provided

M/s. De vs. ons Pvt. Ltd

u/s 133 (6) of the Income Tax Act were sent to them to confirm their credit balances. All the letters have been received back with the postal remarks “Incomplete address”. The assessee was apprised of the position on 17.03.98 and he was again provided an opportunity to furnish the confirmation of these trade creditors. Thereafter, another opportunity was provided

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the IT Act, 1961. The same is being initiated separately.” 10.2 The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the case of assessee‟s group company and relied on the following cases:- a. CIT v/s. Vodafone South

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 2,25,51,980/-) 16. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the said addition for A.Y 2011-12 held as under:- “4.4.3.2. The submissions of the appellant have been considered and are not found to be tenable. The case laws cited have also been considered

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 2,25,51,980/-) 16. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the said addition for A.Y 2011-12 held as under:- “4.4.3.2. The submissions of the appellant have been considered and are not found to be tenable. The case laws cited have also been considered

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 2,25,51,980/-) 16. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the said addition for A.Y 2011-12 held as under:- “4.4.3.2. The submissions of the appellant have been considered and are not found to be tenable. The case laws cited have also been considered

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 2,25,51,980/-) 16. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the said addition for A.Y 2011-12 held as under:- “4.4.3.2. The submissions of the appellant have been considered and are not found to be tenable. The case laws cited have also been considered

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 2,25,51,980/-) 16. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the said addition for A.Y 2011-12 held as under:- “4.4.3.2. The submissions of the appellant have been considered and are not found to be tenable. The case laws cited have also been considered

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

197 of the Act for FY 2011-12 relating to TDS @1% for payment received on rent 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

LAHMEYER HOLDING GMBH,DEUTSCHLAND vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrir.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry & Lahmeyer Holding Gambh, Vs. Ddit, Friedbergerstrasses, Circle-3(2), 173, 61118, Bad Vilel, New Delhi Deutschland Pan: Aaacl6802E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) deals with the case where the Assessee(s) has entered into an international transaction(s), which is not the case here and therefore, penalty under challenge cannot survive. 7.1 The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to a certificate dated 19.05.2004 issued qua revenues received from JIL, by the revenue department (Assistant Director of Income

LAHMEYER HOLDING GMBH,DEUTSCHLAND vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrir.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry & Lahmeyer Holding Gambh, Vs. Ddit, Friedbergerstrasses, Circle-3(2), 173, 61118, Bad Vilel, New Delhi Deutschland Pan: Aaacl6802E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) deals with the case where the Assessee(s) has entered into an international transaction(s), which is not the case here and therefore, penalty under challenge cannot survive. 7.1 The ld. Counsel also drew our attention to a certificate dated 19.05.2004 issued qua revenues received from JIL, by the revenue department (Assistant Director of Income

POTENT FOODS PRIVATE LIMTED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

197 (Delhi) that mere proof of identity without genuineness and creditworthiness is not enough for share application. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. 87 DTR 0162 (Del) that the onus to prove the three factum is on the assessee as the facts are within his knowledge

HAZARI LAL KESARI CHAND,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

197 Taxman 415/10 taxmann.com 2 (Delhi) where the Court held that that the term 'failure' on the part of the assessee is not restricted to the return and the columns of the return or the tax audit report. [Para 42]. It is also pertinent to observe that reopening based on information received from the Investigation wing is a valid basis

SH. SURYA KANT JAIPURIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Surya Kant Jaipuria Vs. Acit, S-25, Green Park Main Market, Central Cir 7, New Delhi-110016 New Delhi Pan : Aaipj6008K Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act were concluded and penalty of Rs. 19,14,924/- was imposed. The assessee had challenged the same before Ld. CIT(A) who had sustained the penalty and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, the assessee is in appeal raising following grounds :- 1. “That on facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

271/- and determined the total income at Rs 110,42,45,751/- which admittedly included the returned income of Rs 107,56,68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence

MAHESH CHAND GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Mahesh Chand Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), B-209, Lohia Nagar, Cgo Complex, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201001 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aarpg8728N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© are being initiated for concealment of income.” 7.2 After perusing the aforesaid paragraphs of the assessment order, I find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that AO has erred in making addition to income on the basis of Additional Capital introduced by the Assessee even though it was not having any mention

SAMEER BUILDTAID P.LTD,NEW DELHIQ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6123/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sameer Builtaid Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-49, 2Nd Floor, Joshi Colony, I.P. Extn. Circle-22(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics6389P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

197/- 4. After the rejection of books of accounts, the AO estimated profit of Rs. 69,37,735/- @ 4% of the turnover. The A.O. has made the addition in assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.02.2016 and the relevant portion is reproduced as under: "The Assessee company e-filed return of income for A. Y.2013-14