VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-26(3), DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee being ITA\nNos.901 & 903/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. He brought\nto our notice Form 35 filed by the assessee, wherein in Column No.8,\nassessee has clearly indicated that assessee had filed its return of income and\npaid the self-assessment tax of Rs.10,05,536/-. Therefore, the case of the\nassessee will not fall under section 249(4)(b

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-26(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-26(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. He brought\n\nto our notice Form 35 filed by the assessee, wherein in Column No.8,\nassessee has clearly indicated that assessee had filed its return of income and\npaid the self-assessment tax of Rs.10,05,536/-. Therefore, the case of the\nassessee will not fall under section 249(4)(b

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or subsection (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

4. a) The AO has levied the penalty on the ground that the assessee is a dealer in shares and such expenditure cannot be considered as business expenditure because evidence has been filed to prove the business purpose. II b) The AO has completely ignored the fact that the appellant is a share broker also (Pg.16, PB). It has declared

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-26(3), DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee being ITA\nNos.901 & 903/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/-\nwith the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued\nu/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with\nthe observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s\n142(1) and served the same via email

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

u/s 271(1)(c). Since the provisions of Explanation 5 are not attracted in the case of both the assessee, penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in all the appeals. We order accordingly.” 8. In these circumstances, when Meera Devi’s appeals (ITA 564- 568/Del/2008) were taken up for hearing

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

249 (SC) as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the Return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

b) while working out the Book Profit of the assessee for the purpose of Income Tax Returns u/s 115JB of the act. Subsequently, the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 30.9.2014 decided the issue with respect to disallowance of the same in the normal computation of total income. The relevant facts were stated at par no. 2 to para no. 4

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we confirm the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Acountant Member

b) while working out the Book Profit of the assessee for the purpose of Income Tax Returns u/s 115JB of the act. Subsequently, the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 30.9.2014 decided the issue with respect to disallowance of the same in the normal computation of total income. The relevant facts were stated at par no. 2 to para no. 4

MS. SHILPY SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

4. Sh. Durgesh Sharma Rs. 1,00,000/- 5. Sh.Atvir Sharma Rs. 5,00,000/- 6. Sh. Anil Sharma Rs. 5,00,000/- 7. Sh. Malti Upadhay Rs. 10,00,000/- TOTAL Rs.30,00,000/- During the assessment proceeding the assessee was asked to explain the genuineness of the loan transaction and prove identity and creditworthiness of the creditors

VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LIMITED,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-26(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

section 271(1)(b) of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.20,000/- with the finding that the assessee has not complied to various notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty with the observation that earlier Assessing Officer has issued the notices u/s 142(1) and served the same via email

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

M/S. CHINTELS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

section 153A of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and law in upholding the levy of penalty despite the fact that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) itself is not sustainable on merits also. 6. (i) On the facts

AISHANI CONSULTANTS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and u/s 271F for non filing of ITR. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 7. After consideration of the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal of the assessee u/s 249(4)(b) holding

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

249 (Del). In that case, it was held that when surrender of the asset has been made on the date of search and when such surrender falls within the explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty was bound to be cancelled. 2012:DHC:7381-DB ITA 170/2012 Page 4 5. The assessee argued that since