KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) pertains to the assessment year 2005-06 and impugns the order dated 28th February, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the tribunal) dismissing ITA No. 2012:DHC:1786-DB ITA 1152/2011 Page 2 of 16 5053/Del/2010 filed by the assessee and confirming the penalty under Section

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 26.3.2014 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 300(ASR)/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATHTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that

ACI, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI vs. BENTLY NEVADA LLC, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Bently Nevada Llc Circle -1(1)(2), (Earlier Known As Bentley International Taxation, Nevada Inc.), 6Th Floor, New Delhi Building 7A, Standard Chartered Building, Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii, Gurgaon Pan :Aadcb8118J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. 4 | P a g e AY: 2006-07 Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA 240/2009 in CIT-H vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. order dated 05.10.2010 whereby identical issue is decided as under: "Both the CIT(A) as well

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. NG TECHNOLOGIES LTD

The appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) pertains to assessment years 2006-07 and was admitted for hearing vide order dated 7th December, 2012, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the ld. ITAT was correct in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee in holding that the assessee had discharged the onus cast upon

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. THAPER HOMES PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed against the

260A of the Income Tax Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.08.2025 18:18:46 Signature Not Verified ITA 262/2025 Page 2 of 13 Act, 1961 (the Act) filed by the Revenue is to an order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi (ITAT) whereby the ITAT has decided the appeal filed

MR RAHUL MISHRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed in limine

260A of the Act.. . 6. The Tribunal and the authorities have rejected the contention of the appellant that failure to disclose short term capital gains on sale of property or claim of short term capital loss was a fault or failure of the Chartered Accountant. The said finding is again based upon sound and good reasoning. It is eventually

INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SHIVANI TEXTILES LTD

260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act, 1961”) challenging the order dated 30th November, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “ITAT”) in ITA No. 3573/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2001-2002. 2. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the ITAT had erred in law in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal

CIT vs. SHIVANI TEXTILES LTD

260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act, 1961”) challenging the order dated 30th November, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “ITAT”) in ITA No. 3573/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2001-2002. 2. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, learned counsel for Revenue submitted that the ITAT had erred in law in dismissing the Revenue’s appeal

RAJNISH J. KARKI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-32(5), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajnish J. Karki Ito L-1/13, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs Ward-32(5) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Ajepk8684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 271 (1) (c) r.w.s. 275 (1)(a) limitation begins to run from date of order from appellate Tribunal was served upon Commissioner (Judicial). The relevant findings read as under :- This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 16th April, 2018 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 3860/Del/2017 & SA No. 85/Del/2018

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, in short) relate to the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. 2. By the common impugned order dated 24.01.2014, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Tribunal’, in short), has affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’, in short], deleting penalty levied under Section 271

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) relate to the assessment year 1997-98. ITA No. 16/2004 preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) dated 13th May, 2003. ITA No. 1070/2005 and ITA No. 24/2006 are two cross-appeals by the Revenue and the assessee, respectively

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GIAN GUPTA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Us By Way Of This Appeal.

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 2775/Del/2010 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs 1 crore on account of alleged unexplained investment in land at village Samalkha. The Assessing Officer had also made

M/S LEA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dated 11th July, 2013 upholding levy of penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The appeal in question pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06. 3. The respondent-assessee a foreign company

SAD BHAWNA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the six quantum appeals and six penalty appeals of the assessee for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandra

260A of the Act. The Court’s mandate, thus, is to consider whether or not a substantial question of law arises for consideration. 12.1 As noted above, the impugned order has not been passed on merits. 13. The Tribunal has applied the plain provisions of the 2019 Circular, based on which, it has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee