DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NALWA STEEL & POWER LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N. Mishraa.Y. : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle 13(1), M/S Nalwa Steel & Power New Delhi Vs. Limited, Room No. 406, Cr Building, 28, Najafgarh Road, Ip Estate, New Delhi New Delhi

penalty proceedings u/s. 271((1)© was initiated by issue of notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)© of the Act and further furnishing the reply by the assessee company, the AO observed that as per provisions of Section 32(1)(iia

M/S. BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20.3 The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another 20.4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute and / or modify in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of objections at or before the hearing of the appeal

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

JINDAL STEEL POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, HISAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby dropped. According to the High Court, there was no basis indicated for dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal referred to certain aspects and held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

BG EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with Explanation 7 of the same.” 5. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. DRP by way of filing objections who has extended part relief. Feeling aggrieved, the taxpayer has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 6. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

section 80-IA amounting to Rs.11,12,42,521/- in respect of its Wind Power Plant (WPP) and Captive Power Plant (CPP) which was inadvertently left to be claimed while filing the return of income. 22.2 allowance of remaining additional depreciation @10% u/s 32(1)(iia) amounting to Rs.58,14,99,012/-. 22.3 claim of TDS deducted on sale

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

penalty, in case of failure by the DISCOMS to pay its dues within the period as specified by DERC. When the principal amount of bills towards sale of electricity itself is due then there is no basis for making out a case that LPSC payable by the customers would be collectible with certainty. J) the other CPSUs such as NTPC

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2006-07]

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions/disallowances made in the assessment order dated 28.03.2013. It is equally true that the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 was framed u/s 143(3)/263 of the Act. 6. We find that the order u/s 263 of the Act was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in ITA No. 1712/DEL/2010

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., Circle – 11(1), 34, Basant Lok, Vasant New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach 0812 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

32(1)(iia) which was not tenable as per law and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT in the preceding years as well as the year under consideration? 3. Whether on the facts & the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,27,000/- on disallowance of deduction

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

u/s 13A. The AR expressed his inability to do so. Furthermore, it is noticed that the Party has furnished R & ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 11 of 71 P A/c's in respect of the Distt. Units also. No Balance Sheet was filed. 2. In the A/c's of the following State Units. 1. Haryana 2. Bihar 3. Himachal Pradesh

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

u/s 13A. The AR expressed his inability to do so. Furthermore, it is noticed that the Party has furnished R & ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 11 of 71 P A/c's in respect of the Distt. Units also. No Balance Sheet was filed. 2. In the A/c's of the following State Units. 1. Haryana 2. Bihar 3. Himachal Pradesh

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

u/s 13A. The AR expressed his inability to do so. Furthermore, it is noticed that the Party has furnished R & 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 11 of 71 P A/c's in respect of the Distt. Units also. No Balance Sheet was filed. 2. In the A/c's of the following State Units. 1. Haryana

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NTPC LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty on account of the addition made by the AO of the amortization of premium paid

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NTPC LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty on account of the addition made by the AO of the amortization of premium paid

M/S. NTPC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3590/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Ita No.3194 /Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs Ntpc Limited, Circle-18(2), Ntpc Bhawan, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110002 7, Institutional Area, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0255D

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the levy of penalty on account of the addition made by the AO of the amortization of premium paid

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant- assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

32(1)(iia) amounted to ` 2,50,78,490/- be allowed. (e) ` That the allowance of depreciation of 45,39,692/- on goodwill which was inadvertently left to be claimed while filing the tax return be allowed. (f) That the following receipts may please be excluded while computing profits u/s 115JB of the Act :- i) Rs.4

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

iia) and 32AC of the Act respectively in respect of Capital expenditure of which weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act was disallowed. 55.0 The Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to grant the weighted deduction amounting to Rs. 1,64,72,14,000/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. X. Disallowance of Deduction u/s

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

iia) and 32AC of the Act respectively in respect of Capital expenditure of which weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act was disallowed. 55.0 The Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to grant the weighted deduction amounting to Rs. 1,64,72,14,000/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. X. Disallowance of Deduction u/s