DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MINERALS MANAGEMENTS SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Dcit Vs. M/S. Minerals Managements Circle 16(2), Services India Pvt. Ltd. 1104, 11Th Floor, New Delhi Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place Pan : Aaacm6334J New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D as per rules. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby

GAUTAM KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

234C of I.T. Act 1961 as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue demand notice and challan alongwith a copy of this order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act are initiated

GAUTAM KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

234C of I.T. Act 1961 as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue demand notice and challan alongwith a copy of this order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act are initiated

MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

234C has been charged as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms. " The income of the assessee was thus assessed under section 115J8 and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

234C has been charged as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 have been initiated. Issue necessary forms. " The income of the assessee was thus assessed under section 115J8 and not under the normal provisions. It is in this context that we have

LENIENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being initiated as the assessee has concealed his income from AY 2014-15.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In Form No. 35 the assessee submitted the statement of facts before the Ld. CIT(A) which the Ld. CIT(A) reproduced as under

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated by 11 IT Nos.2005 & 2006/Del/2025 Seema Goel vs. CIT(A) issue of notice u/s

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2)(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

234C of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

234C of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

234C of the Act. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

M/S COLT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (I) PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the ITA No

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 14. The above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to one another. 15. The appellant craves leave to add / withdraw / amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred

COLT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the ITA No

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 14. The above grounds of appeals are independent and without prejudice to one another. 15. The appellant craves leave to add / withdraw / amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvediita Nos. 7293 & 7294/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Satya Prakash Sharma Vs. Ito 3051/2, Gali Kalyan Ward – 47(4) Singh, Ram Bazaar, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 006 Pan No. Amfps 0402 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, C.A. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.09.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 25.06.2019 & 26.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Being Quantum Appeal & Penalty Appeal Respectively.

section 144/143(3) vide order dated 28.12.2017 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,44,257/-. On such additions, AO also levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.06.2019 in Appeal No.10068/2018-19

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvediita Nos. 7293 & 7294/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Satya Prakash Sharma Vs. Ito 3051/2, Gali Kalyan Ward – 47(4) Singh, Ram Bazaar, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 006 Pan No. Amfps 0402 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Patwari, C.A. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.09.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 25.06.2019 & 26.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Being Quantum Appeal & Penalty Appeal Respectively.

section 144/143(3) vide order dated 28.12.2017 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.17,44,257/-. On such additions, AO also levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who vide order dated 25.06.2019 in Appeal No.10068/2018-19

INSTRUMENTATION LABORATORY INDIA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Instrumentation Laboratory Vs. Dcit India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(2) 1471-1476, 14Th Floor, New Delhi Aggarwal Millennium Tower- 2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aabci6557N Appellant Respondent

234C and initiation of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is, therefore, prayed that addition made to the returned income be deleted, and interest levied u/s 234B section