ANAND KUMAR BANSAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaanand Kumar Bansal Vs Dcit 145, Bank Enclave, Central Circle Ii Lakshmi Nagar, Faridabad. Delhi. Aajpb0552D

254,925/- on this amount also. 2.4 Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that although there was no dispute that the assessee had admitted the undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee has failed to demonstrate how exactly the undisclosed income was derived

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

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

2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of completed assessment under section 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at the total income nil after allowing set off of brought forward loss of Rs.27,89,93,000/- as against the returned loss of Rs.73

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

254, assessing the total income of the Petitioner at Rs.4,63,94,561, after making revised transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

254, assessing the total income of the Petitioner at Rs.4,63,94,561, after making revised transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

254, assessing the total income of the Petitioner at Rs.4,63,94,561, after making revised transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271

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

u/s. 143(2) dated 11.12.2013 that the assessee filed the revised computation of book profit. In this context, it is significant to note that the AO issued questionnaire which does not contain even a whisper on this issue. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the assessee filed revised computation only when the ambiguity was pointed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Poddar Pigments Ltd., A- Dcit, Circle-14(1), New Delhi 283, Ground Floor, Okhla Indl. Area-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacp1125E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. P.C. Parwal, Fca Date Of Hearing 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/01/2014 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) For Assessment Year 2007-08, Wherein He Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 29/03/2012 Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Account Of Additions Under The Head Of U/S 40(A)(I) Amounting To Rs.9,14,191/- & Ltcg Amounting To Rs.41,62,154/- Holding That The Assessee Has Not Furnished Any Inaccurate Particulars Or Has Made Any Deliberate Attempt To Conceal Income. Ii. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Deleting The Above

271(1)(c) of the Act on the long-term capital gain 3 AY: 2007-08 amounting to Rs.41,62,154/- which was not contested by the assessee before the appellate authorities. 2.1 The facts in respect of first issue are that penalty in respect of disallowance of Rs.9,14,191/- under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed by the CIT(A) is cancelled. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue has no force and the same is also dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of revenue is dismissed." I '"{, Clearly, the ITAT deleted the penalty thinking that the decisions in Prithipal Singh

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR MODI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on account of alleged non-compliance in proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A I of the Act, is illegal and bad in law.” 5. Admission of the additional ground has been opposed in principle

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

2) of the Act, and also get the same audited by a Chartered Accountant as per provision of Section 44AB of the Act. 7.2 Further, despite such huge turnover of Rs. 4,63,30,254/- and huge cash deposits in his bank accounts, the assessee did not care to get his accounts audited under Section 44AB

MANOJ MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2412/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Manoj Mittal, Dcit H-1, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-8, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaipm7274J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 254 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer making an addition of Rs.4,73,526/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

penalty was rightly levied upon the assessee u/s 271 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. For the reasons explained hereafter the Court is of the view that the above question requires to be reframed. Background facts 4. The background facts require to be narrated. The Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of soft drinks