ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WASHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

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

197 ITR 330 while considering the constitutional validity of section 269SS and 269T held that the objective was to curb the circulation of black money and put an effective check upon it. Even otherwise, as decided by the Hon’ble ITAT in Herpalsingh Jaswantsingh vs. ITO 82 Taxman 81, a bona fide belief coupled with genuineness of transaction would constitute

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2911/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Unitech Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Basement , 6, Circle - 27(1), Community Centre, Saket New Delhi Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaacr4290E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) was ambiguous as it did nto specify the offence alleged to be committed. The order levying penalty is not sustainable in law as it violates the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not provided a fair opportunity to defend its case. 4. Without prejudice, the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO and upheld

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLD SPORT NIMBUS PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly appeals filed by the learned AO for all 3 years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1) (c) of the Act levied by the ld AO. The facts for all these three years are identical except the amount of penalties involved. 5. Therefore, we first state the facts for AY 2002-03. The facts for assessment year 2002 – 03 shows that assessee was issued notice u/s 142 (1) of the income tax act on 26/3/2003

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLD SPORT NIMBUS PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly appeals filed by the learned AO for all 3 years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1) (c) of the Act levied by the ld AO. The facts for all these three years are identical except the amount of penalties involved. 5. Therefore, we first state the facts for AY 2002-03. The facts for assessment year 2002 – 03 shows that assessee was issued notice u/s 142 (1) of the income tax act on 26/3/2003

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORLD SPORT NIMBUS PTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly appeals filed by the learned AO for all 3 years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1) (c) of the Act levied by the ld AO. The facts for all these three years are identical except the amount of penalties involved. 5. Therefore, we first state the facts for AY 2002-03. The facts for assessment year 2002 – 03 shows that assessee was issued notice u/s 142 (1) of the income tax act on 26/3/2003

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

197 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of mobilisation of deposits from its members. It is registered as a mutual benefit company under Section 620A of the Companies Act, 1956. It can accept deposits only from its share holders/members and nobody else. 3. Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

197 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of mobilisation of deposits from its members. It is registered as a mutual benefit company under Section 620A of the Companies Act, 1956. It can accept deposits only from its share holders/members and nobody else. 3. Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act” for short

M/S. MORADABAD TOLL ROAD COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

u/s. 271(1)© of the Act were initiated by issuing notice on 04.2.2013. In response thereto, the assessee filed its reply dated 17.10.2012. After considering the response of the assessee, the AO observed that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars within the meaning of explanation 1 to the sub section (1) of the Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

KALINGA CABLES AND CONDUITS CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-41(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

197/- imposed by the learned ITO. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has passed the order in haste and without providing fair and reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Hence the order is bad in law and illegal. 3. That the learned CIT (A) had wrongly, illegally and without justification not considered the replies filed before him quantum addition was voluntarily

M/S. VIRGIN MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivirgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit(Tds), C/O. Tata Teleservices Ltd, Range-51, Room No. 406, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Pan: Aadcr5798J Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

197 (1) of the income tax act dated 16th/1/2015. The learned assessing officer noted that the about tax deduction at source certificate has been given for the period from 10/12/2000 08/02/1931/3/2009 only. However, there was admittedly a failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source on these above two expenses. However merely failure to deduct

CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty by the CIT (A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) of Rs.83,157/- and 2,22,970/- for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Since, undisputedly the facts of both the years are common we dispose off the appeals by this common order. 2 ITA Nos.6149 & 6150/Del./2013 3. Briefly

CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty by the CIT (A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) of Rs.83,157/- and 2,22,970/- for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Since, undisputedly the facts of both the years are common we dispose off the appeals by this common order. 2 ITA Nos.6149 & 6150/Del./2013 3. Briefly

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORPTPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

271 C. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the class of cases of TP As and insurance companies, the Board has decided that no proceedings U/S 201 may be initiated after the expiry of six years from the end of financial year in which such payment have been made without deducting tax at source etc by the TPAs

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORP TPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

271 C. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the class of cases of TP As and insurance companies, the Board has decided that no proceedings U/S 201 may be initiated after the expiry of six years from the end of financial year in which such payment have been made without deducting tax at source etc by the TPAs

M/S. VIPUL MEDCORP TPA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

271 C. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the class of cases of TP As and insurance companies, the Board has decided that no proceedings U/S 201 may be initiated after the expiry of six years from the end of financial year in which such payment have been made without deducting tax at source etc by the TPAs

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted