SH. VISHAL SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Vishal Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Tilak Raj Sethi, Ward 58(1), 246, 1St Floor, New Layalpur, New Delhi Chander Nagar, Delhi – 110 051 (Pan: Askps5232L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

246, 1st floor, New Layalpur, New Delhi Chander Nagar, Delhi – 110 051 (PAN: ASKPS5232L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Shahank Jain, CA Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. O R D E R This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-19), New Delhi dated 09.11.2015 pertaining to assessment

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA MARKETING COMPANY PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed and the stay

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271 of the Act it is not discernible as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income under the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and therefore, the impugned penalty order deserves to be cancelled." 4.3.1. The Ground has been considered and found to be devoid

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

section 274 of for the assessment year 2010- 11 -regarding. Please refer to the above mentioned subject. The Hon’ble ITAT vide appellate order ITA No.l42/Del/2017 dated 05.01.2018 has pronounced the order therefore in order to decide the pending penalty proceeding you are hereby given the show cause notice as to why the penalty should not be levied u/s 271

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is automatic, due to its nature of specific deeming provisions applicable to provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.7 It is settled preposition of law that if the additional income offered by the appellant is consequent to the search action then the same constitutes concealment of income u/s 271

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is automatic, due to its nature of specific deeming provisions applicable to provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.7 It is settled preposition of law that if the additional income offered by the appellant is consequent to the search action then the same constitutes concealment of income u/s 271

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is automatic, due to its nature of specific deeming provisions applicable to provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.7 It is settled preposition of law that if the additional income offered by the appellant is consequent to the search action then the same constitutes concealment of income u/s 271

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is automatic, due to its nature of specific deeming provisions applicable to provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.7 It is settled preposition of law that if the additional income offered by the appellant is consequent to the search action then the same constitutes concealment of income u/s 271

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is automatic, due to its nature of specific deeming provisions applicable to provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.7 It is settled preposition of law that if the additional income offered by the appellant is consequent to the search action then the same constitutes concealment of income u/s 271

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is automatic, due to its nature of specific deeming provisions applicable to provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.7 It is settled preposition of law that if the additional income offered by the appellant is consequent to the search action then the same constitutes concealment of income u/s 271

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 271(1)(c) is automatic, due to its nature of specific deeming provisions applicable to provision u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.7 It is settled preposition of law that if the additional income offered by the appellant is consequent to the search action then the same constitutes concealment of income u/s 271

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within

SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

246/- and 18,972/- @ 100% of tax sought to be evade by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal

SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

246/- and 18,972/- @ 100% of tax sought to be evade by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal

SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

246/- and 18,972/- @ 100% of tax sought to be evade by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 4. Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal

SH. VISHAL SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Vishal Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Tilak Raj Sethi, Ward 59(1), 246, 1St Floor, New Layalpur, New Delhi Chander Nagar, Delhi – 110 051 (Pan: Askps5232L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

246, 1st floor, New Layalpur, New Delhi Chander Nagar, Delhi – 110 051 (PAN: ASKPS5232L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Shahank Jain, CA Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. O R D E R This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-19), New Delhi dated 06.11.2015 pertaining to assessment

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

246 ITR 571 (Delhi), 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus. burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SITASHRI TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

246, Connaught Place C.R. Building New Delhi Vs. New Delhi – 110 002 PAN AABCS0182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Sanjiv Jain, CA Date of Hearing 09/07/2018 Date of 01/10/2018 pronouncement O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order

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

246 Although the provisions of section 269SS and 269T have been enacted with a view to prevent the increase in black money and to stop the tax evasion. 6.7 Therefore, the provisions of section 269SS and 269T must be applied in the context of promoting the purpose for which the said provisions were introduced. The basic purpose of these sections

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

246 Although the provisions of section 269SS and 269T have been enacted with a view to prevent the increase in black money and to stop the tax evasion. 6.7 Therefore, the provisions of section 269SS and 269T must be applied in the context of promoting the purpose for which the said provisions were introduced. The basic purpose of these sections