M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(ii) of I.T. Act. He also contended that the NHPL followed Project Completion Method of accounting, and no tax was payable because no income was recognized under this method of accounting by NHPL for either of the two Assessment Years, viz A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13; and further, that no penalty was leviable either U/s

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(ii) of I.T. Act. He also contended that the NHPL followed Project Completion Method of accounting, and no tax was payable because no income was recognized under this method of accounting by NHPL for either of the two Assessment Years, viz A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13; and further, that no penalty was leviable either U/s

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(ii) of I.T. Act. He also contended that the NHPL followed Project Completion Method of accounting, and no tax was payable because no income was recognized under this method of accounting by NHPL for either of the two Assessment Years, viz A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13; and further, that no penalty was leviable either U/s

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 271AAA(2)(ii) of I.T. Act. He also contended that the NHPL followed Project Completion Method of accounting, and no tax was payable because no income was recognized under this method of accounting by NHPL for either of the two Assessment Years, viz A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13; and further, that no penalty was leviable either U/s

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2% returns are taken up for scrutiny and this fact induces them to make such wrong/inadmissible claims with the intention of going scot-free, if the case is not taken up for scrutiny, which is apparent from the fact that assessment u/s 143(1) in the case has been made on returned income. Furthermore, disallowance/additions in sue a cases

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the four cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271-I, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section 1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans and it offered amount of transaction as additional income, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty u/s271 (1 )(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation 1 (B) of the section

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(b) of the Act is leviable. 1. Provisions of the Chapter XIV-B regarding the block assessment were introduced w.e.f. 01/07/1995 and this chapter ceased to apply after 31/05/2003 when section 153A was inserted in respect of searches conducted after 31/05/2003. Section 158BC of the Act provided for special procedure for block assessment in case of searches

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2. It is contended that the Appellant Board had neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particular so as to attract provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35 being an incentive

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2. It is contended that the Appellant Board had neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particular so as to attract provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35 being an incentive

M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

2. It is contended that the Appellant Board had neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particular so as to attract provisions of section 271(l)(c) of the IT Act. hence the impugned penalty order is wrong and bad in law. 3. It is contended that the claim of benefit of weighted deduction under section 35 being an incentive

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable when there is variation in assessed and returned income and not otherwise. If there is no variation, there will be no concealment. When there is no concealment, the question of levy of penalty would not arise. 6. Aggrieved by the CIT (A) order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal contending

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI NEERAJ JINDAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable when there is variation in assessed and returned income and not otherwise. If there is no variation, there will be no concealment. When there is no concealment, the question of levy of penalty would not arise. 6. Aggrieved by the CIT (A) order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal contending

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19 vs. SHRI ANKUR AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable when there is variation in assessed and returned income and not otherwise. If there is no variation, there will be no concealment. When there is no concealment, the question of levy of penalty would not arise. 6. Aggrieved by the CIT (A) order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal contending

SMT. TRIPAT KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishismt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner Of Income New Delhi Tax Pan: Aaapk8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

2) of Section 271AAA of the Act. Therefore learned assessing officer imposed a penalty of ₹ 30 lakhs vide order dated 29/9/2014 passed u/s 271AAA of the act. He further held that is on the same amount the penalty is believed under section 271 (1) (C ) of the income tax act therefore, he levied penalty under section 271AAA of ₹ 30 lakhs

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

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

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)

2) he, in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub- section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before

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)

2) he, in the course of the search, makes a statement under sub- section (4) of section 132 that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in his possession or under his control, has been acquired out of his income which has not been disclosed so far in his return of income to be furnished before