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

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

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

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

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest paid on the income disclosed before the Settlement Commission

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest paid on the income disclosed before the Settlement Commission

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest paid on the income disclosed before the Settlement Commission

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 7. That the total tax demand including interest under section 234A and 234B had been raised amounting to Rs. 557080. The ld. AO did give credit for tax and interest paid on the income disclosed before the Settlement Commission

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

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 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. 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

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground, in our considered opinion is premature and as such Ground No.10 of the Appeal is also dismissed. A composite glance of the remaining grounds of appeal reveals that following three issues require our adjudication : (i) Validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act (ii) Disallowance u/s

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