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

199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was confirmed

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

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

199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which was confirmed

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

199 of his paper book, which is an assessment order under section 153A read with section 143 (3) of the income tax act, 1961 dated 27/3/2015 and submitted that information was provided in the assessment order itself. He further referred to page number 213 wherein para number 10 of the assessment order, assessee has submitted by letter dated 20 January

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

CIT vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD

Bench: The Authorities Below Was With Regard To Tenability Of The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As „A.O.‟) In Levying A Penalty In The Sum Of Rs 21,34,200/- On The Assessee Under The Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „I.T. Act‟). The

199 TAXMAN 21(Del) and CIT vs M.S. Bindra & Sons (P) Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 125 (Del). 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the judgment and the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of the order of the A.O. would show that there is a reference to the proceedings initiated under Section

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

271-D of the Act, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted. In view of above, it is requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled. 10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated

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

271-D of the Act, a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted. In view of above, it is requested that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be cancelled. 10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

271(1)(c) is required to be imposed with reference to tax sought to be evaded. In the order imposing penalty, this requirement of law has not been fulfilled in as much as tax sought to be evaded has not been worked out. There is no tax which is sought to be evaded. The assessee company had paid full

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.

Bench: The Ld. C1T(A) At First Opportunity & He Ought To Have Followed The Binding Precedent Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Cit Vs. Ssa'S Emerald Meadows, (Supra) Where The Hon'Ble Apex Court Looked Into The Facts Before Them That Tribunal Relying On The Decision Of The Division Bench Of The Hon‟Ble Karnataka High Court In The Case This Is A Digitally Signed Order. The Authenticity Of The Order Can Be Re-Verified From Delhi High Court Order Portal By Scanning The Qr Code Shown Above. The Order Is Downloaded From The Dhc Server On 15/04/2024 At 11:54:38

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Mr. Bhatia has handed over a copy of the Notice dated 22 December 2017 for our perusal and which reads as follows:- “Original return of income was electronically filed on 28.09.2015 vide E-filing Acknowledgement number 825457471280915 declaring a loss of Rs.l7,87,88, 640/- which was processed u/s

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODERN STAGE SERVICE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Modern Stage Service, Ward-32(1), 35, Municipal Market, New Delhi. Lodhi Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafm8966F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2016 Order

penalty is imposable u/s 271(1)(c) in case the claim of TDS was found wrong. We are of the considered view that the withdrawal of the credit of TDS in respect of which the income is not offered/assessed in the relevant AY in view of provisions of section 199

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method