PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

234-C of Rs. 218850. The Assessee paid balance demand of Rs. 87270 on 19-02-2020. 3) The Income Tax officer has also issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23-03-2021 and fixed hearing for 05-04-2021 for submission of reply for not imposing penalty

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED,WEST DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Fresenius Kabi Oncology Vs. Dcit/ National Faceless Limited B-310 Somdatt Assessment Centre Chambers I R K Puram New Delhi (Main) South West Delhi 110006 Pan No. Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Ms. Aakriti Bansal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22 /07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 Order Per Sudhir Kumar: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 12.11.2024 Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’).

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by Assessing Officer by observing as under: “Assessed at net taxable income of Rs. 43,62,34,300/-. Since, tax on book profit is more than tax under normal provision, therefore charge tax at book profit of Rs. 71,57,92,161/-. Charge interest u/s 234A, 234

GENCHI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

penalty under section 2 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The return of income declaring loss of Rs.8,67,25,234/- was filed on 30.11.2016. The case was selected

SUSHIL BANSAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

penalty order dated 27.03.2022 framed u/s. 271 AAB respectively. 2. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We will first address to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.300/Del/2022. 4. The peculiar facts of the present appeal are that the appellants father Sh. Om Prakash Bansal, appeared before

SUSHIL BANSAL ,DELHI vs. ACIT , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

penalty order dated 27.03.2022 framed u/s. 271 AAB respectively. 2. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. We will first address to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.300/Del/2022. 4. The peculiar facts of the present appeal are that the appellants father Sh. Om Prakash Bansal, appeared before

JALANDHAR AMRITISAR TOLLWAYS LTD.,,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2015 for AY 2012-13 and 10.03.2025 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, ITA No.2921 & 3926/Del/2017 ITA Nos.4214 & 3927/Del/2017 M/s. Jalandhar Amritsar Tollways Ltd Circle-13(1), Delhi and DCIT, Circle-4(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issues are involved

JALANDHAR AMRITSAR TOLLWAYS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2015 for AY 2012-13 and 10.03.2025 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, ITA No.2921 & 3926/Del/2017 ITA Nos.4214 & 3927/Del/2017 M/s. Jalandhar Amritsar Tollways Ltd Circle-13(1), Delhi and DCIT, Circle-4(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issues are involved

ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JALANDHAR AMRITSAR TOLLWAYS LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2015 for AY 2012-13 and 10.03.2025 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, ITA No.2921 & 3926/Del/2017 ITA Nos.4214 & 3927/Del/2017 M/s. Jalandhar Amritsar Tollways Ltd Circle-13(1), Delhi and DCIT, Circle-4(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issues are involved

JALANDHAR AMRITSAR TOLLWAYS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.03.2015 for AY 2012-13 and 10.03.2025 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, ITA No.2921 & 3926/Del/2017 ITA Nos.4214 & 3927/Del/2017 M/s. Jalandhar Amritsar Tollways Ltd Circle-13(1), Delhi and DCIT, Circle-4(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Identical issues are involved

CAMBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION (DELHI) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandracambridge Construction Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3) (Delhi) Private Limited New Delhi – 110002 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc0295N Appellant .. Respondent

271(1)(c) dated 29.10.2021 and levied Penalty of Rs.2,70,00,000/-. P a g e | 3 Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) 4.1 An appeal was filed before CIT(A) against Order u/s 143(3) dated 22.03.2016 and the appeal was dismissed vide order u/s 250 dated 28.05.2019. 5. An appeal was filed before ITAT

SAHDEV JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-51(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2011-12

234/- giving to S.R. Forging Ltd. (ii). Addition of Rs.1,00,70,712/- G.P. rate @ 3% on account of rejection of books of accounts and trading results declared by the Assessee u/s. 145(3) of the Act. (iii). Addition of Rs.2,95,848/- on account of car repair expenses. 3. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 30.01.2014 also initiated

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

234 (SC)] which held as follows: “The payer is bound to deduct TDS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of tax being deducted.” 44. We are also inclined to agree with the contention that in cases of composite contract, the assessee needs to apply u/s 195(2) only

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

234 (SC)] which held as follows: “The payer is bound to deduct TDS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of tax being deducted.” 44. We are also inclined to agree with the contention that in cases of composite contract, the assessee needs to apply u/s 195(2) only

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

234 (SC)] which held as follows: “The payer is bound to deduct TDS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of tax being deducted.” 44. We are also inclined to agree with the contention that in cases of composite contract, the assessee needs to apply u/s 195(2) only

AVTEC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), CIRCLE-1 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

234 (SC)] which held as follows: “The payer is bound to deduct TDS only if the tax is assessable in India. If tax is not so assessable, there is no question of tax being deducted.” 44. We are also inclined to agree with the contention that in cases of composite contract, the assessee needs to apply u/s 195(2) only