PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

206/- including therein Rs. 17,46,906/-, the amount of capital gain surrendered, on 05.12.2017 under section 143(3) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 7. The Ld. AO issued penalty notice dated 05.12.2017 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act (that too on protective basis in the case of Sanjay Dalmia). This means that the AO has ignored the alleged default committed earlier and the information desired by the said notice did not have any bearing on the information relied in the assessment made. It was held

TRANSGULF FROZEN FOODS CONTAINERS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

206-207, Ansal Satyam, RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh AACCT2067R (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Pushkar Pandey, Adv & Ms. Ishita Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Prakash Dueby, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.09.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 16/05/2018 & 31/05/2018 passed

TRANSGULF FROZEN FOODS CONTAINERS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

206-207, Ansal Satyam, RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh AACCT2067R (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. Pushkar Pandey, Adv & Ms. Ishita Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh. Prakash Dueby, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.09.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 16/05/2018 & 31/05/2018 passed

M/S NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Nortel Networks India Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-18(2), New Delhi C-227, Ground Floor, Near Garden Of Five Senses, Westend Marg, Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi Pan :Aabcn1428B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

u/s 271(1 )(c) cannot be levied in the instant case where more than one legal view is possible. 1.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on the decisions in case of Robert Addie & Sons’ Colleries

BRIGHT VIEW BUILDCON LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BRIGHT VIEW BUILDCON P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

206/- by making the addition on account of income in reset of TDS amount claimed less already declared in ITR Rs. 12,66,547/-; income in respect of other credit entries in bank Rs. 28,93,417/- and income from other sources Rs. 2,87,112/- thus totaling to Rs. 44,47,076/- Further, penalty proceedings were initiated

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

206-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Modipon Ltd, VS Addll. CIT (TDS), Modinagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN:AAACM2069E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Santosh Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/06/2016 Date of pronouncement 27/06/2016 ORDER PER BENCH 1. These three appeals filed by the assessee were earlier disposed off vide order dated

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

206-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Modipon Ltd, VS Addll. CIT (TDS), Modinagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN:AAACM2069E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Santosh Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22/06/2016 Date of pronouncement 27/06/2016 ORDER PER BENCH 1. These three appeals filed by the assessee were earlier disposed off vide order dated

M/S ALP OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

206 (P&H) 6.3 S. 271 - Erroneous deduction u/s. SOL did not amount to concealment of income - Where deduction u/s 80L was erroneously claimed and granted to the partner of a firm, it was held that the assessee had honestly disclosed the income and had not concealed anything deliberately and his action did not suffer from any mens rea. Therefore

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

206 & 1161/Del./2017 M/s. IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi. SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (c) ON INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA The desired brief synopsis is being submitted for your Honours' kind consideration on the limited issue of sustaining of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act, for short

M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

206 & 1161/Del./2017 M/s. IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi. SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (c) ON INCORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA The desired brief synopsis is being submitted for your Honours' kind consideration on the limited issue of sustaining of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act, for short

SUMEET SOOD,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the penalty levied is directed to be deleted

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2009-10 Sumeet Sood, Ito, Ward- 46(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Adv., New Delhi. Vs. F – 26/124, Sector – 7, Rohini, Delhi. Pan : Aicps 9872 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

206 & Suresh chand Mittal 259 ITR 19 ; PRAYER/Relief Claimed 1. To delete the penalty levied of Rs 3,20,895/-; 2. Any other relief as deemed fit in circumstances of the case.” 7. Ld. counsel referred to page 33 of appeal set, wherein, notice dated 30.11.2011 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 is contained and pointed out that the Assessing Officer

M/S. DELHI SURGICAL & DRESSING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.5058/Del/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 271(1)(c):- 1. PCIT v. Kulwant Singh Bhatia 2018 (5) TMI 960 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 2. SBI DFHI LTD. v. ACIT 2018 (3) TMI 1363 BOMBAY HIGH COURT 3. M/S BLACKROCK SECURITIES PVT LTD v. ACIT ITA No. 3251/DEL/2019 ITAT DELHI 4. C.S. DATAMATION RESEARCH SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. ITO ITA No.3915/Del/2016, Dated: 15 June 2020 ITAT

DEHRADUN PUBLIC SCHOOL,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ITA No. 1387/del/2016 for assessment year 2011 – 12 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

206-07, Ansal “Satyam” Ghaziabad RDS Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Page 2 of 12 PAN:AAATD6782E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 07/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 18/09/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is the bunch of five appeals as under

SMT. WILIMA WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

section 271(1)(c) as no finding has been given on merit regarding concealment in the order passed by the AO. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and as such mere addition made in assessment does not tantamount to concealment

SMT. WILIMA WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

section 271(1)(c) as no finding has been given on merit regarding concealment in the order passed by the AO. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and as such mere addition made in assessment does not tantamount to concealment

SMT. WILIMA WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

section 271(1)(c) as no finding has been given on merit regarding concealment in the order passed by the AO. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that penalty proceedings are independent proceedings and as such mere addition made in assessment does not tantamount to concealment

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (C) of the income tax act, 1961 by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, central circle – 20, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as per order dated 28/3/2013 of INR 9507003/–. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 6476/Del/2013:- “1. That the learned