SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1) (c) observing that the assessee had declared the additional income only because of initiation of search proceedings. We observed that the Assessing Officer has found the credit and debit entries in the bank statement submitted by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no link to the material found during the search. Therefore

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1) (c) observing that the assessee had declared the additional income only because of initiation of search proceedings. We observed that the Assessing Officer has found the credit and debit entries in the bank statement submitted by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings, therefore, there is no link to the material found during the search. Therefore

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 28.03.2014 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) had been deleted by observing that the assessee had declared and disclosed full and true material facts in the returns. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd. vs. Asst. CST (124 ITR 15) also made an observation on similar lines in its judgment, stating that "where the assessee does

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

u/s 271(1 )(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified 8. CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd [183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 (Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105] where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that if claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment

ASIA SUGAR INDS.P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhary

251 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus, invalid and void abinitio. He thereafter submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) ordering for initiation of penalty under section 271AAA is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 275 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, void abinitio. He submitted that as per the provisions of Section

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

251 ITR 9 (SC) CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal "It is well settled that under section 271(1)(e) the initial burden lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee had concealed the income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The burden shifts to the assessee only if he fails to offer any explanation for the undisclosed

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

section 276C.” 4.7. Thereafter, the AO relied upon various case laws in support of the proposition that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is civil liability and for attracting such civil liability, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient as is case in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C of the Act. The AO also observed that had the case

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. 7.2.5 The Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the findings of the AO and held "..no interest cost has been capitalized during the year. Nothing has been brought on record to controvert the finding of the AO. No break

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 of appeal are dismissed.” 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed all appeals of relevant years due to non- prosecution only. 6. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Departmental Representative (‘CIT- DR’). With the help