DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

iv. ACIT Vs. Sailesh Gopal 86 Taxmma.Com 263 v. Naresh Iron and Steel Vs. DCIT 102 Taxmann.com 333 28. She also referred to the assessment order as well copy of the statement which is placed at page NO. 25 of the paper book . she referred to the answer to the question No. 4 wherein, the above disclosure was made

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S SUCON INDIA LTD, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10

35,028/-(27,63,30,230 + 4798), the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 9,39,26,270/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) canceled the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- 12. I have carefully gone

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

35,29,470/- with income from investments i.e. dividends, capital gains and interest. He stated that AO taken the return of for scrutiny u/s. 143(2) of the Act under CASS and not income escaping based on the information on section 94(7) of the Act disallowance on information based on AIR. He further stated as per page

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

iv. He further referred to the page number 232 of the paper book which contains the statement recorded of the assessee on 5/12/2014, where the documents seized during the course of search were shown to the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the documents were shown to the assessee in the assessment proceedings only. He submitted that the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

IV vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. [2009] 183 TAXMAN 453 (DEL). In this case, the Hon'bie HC Delhi has held that if the claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified. In that case, deduction under

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

35,24,621/-/- 2003-04 3134/DEL/2011 271E 64,84,11,381/- 2003-04 3135/DEL/2011 271D 3,10,66,04,632/-/- 2004-05 3136/DEL/2011 271E 1,06,19,18,377/- 2004-05 3137/DEL/2011 271D 5282670296/- 2005-06 3138/DEL/2011 271E 84,60,00,022/- 2005-06 62/Del/2014 271D 8,30,19,63,312/- 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs Sahara India

M/S NICOTRA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

Section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by the. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a malafide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by scrutiny. This would take

M/S NICOTRA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

Section 143(1) of the Act and even if their case is selected for scrutiny, they can get away merely by paying the tax, which in any case, was payable by the. The consequence would be that the persons who make claims of this nature, actuated by a malafide intention to evade tax otherwise payable by scrutiny. This would take

ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on the grounds inter alia that:- 2 ITA No.2789/Del./2017 “1.1 The order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) - 18, New Delhi, to the extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 1.2 The learned Commissioner

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

section 143(3) of the Act and not u/s 144 of the Act (that too on protective basis in the case of Sanjay Dalmia). This means that the AO has ignored the alleged default committed earlier and the information desired by the said notice did not have any bearing on the information relied in the assessment made. It was held

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

271(1)(c) the penalty was proposed to be levied. 8.2 Before proceeding further, the question as to whether this kind of ground can be allowed to be raised under the aeges of simple ground that there was an error in the order of the AO? To my mind, if this kind of interpretation is subscription to, then there

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd, Plot No. 5, 2Nd Floor, Pusa Circle-16(1), New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0511B (Appellant) (Respondent)

iv) CIT v. Societex [2013] 212 Taxman 73 (Delhi) (Mag.) (v) Karan Raghav Exports (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 112 (Delhi) (Mag.) 6. Moreover, the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 does not specify the limb under which the penalty was levied. In this regard, it is submitted that it is a well settled law, the AO, while

M/S. STAR WIRE (INDIA) LIMITED,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4876/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Star Wire (India) Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 35, Link Road, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-Iii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1124Q Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 24.06.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common In These Appeals Which Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

35, Link Road, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECS1124Q Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against

M/S. STAR WIRE (INDIA) LIMITED,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4876/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Star Wire (India) Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 35, Link Road, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-Iii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1124Q Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 24.06.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common In These Appeals Which Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

35, Link Road, 2nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-III, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECS1124Q Assessee by : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against

ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271(1)(c) was imposed on four counts. (i) Disallowance of Rs.365546/- under Section 14A (ii) Disallowance of interest of Rs.60,72,432/- (iii) Addition of Rs.34,38,000/- under Section 56(2)(viib) I.T.A No.7822/Del/2019 2 and; (iv) Interest on late deposit of TDS wrongly claimed at Rs.6,578/- 2.1 The CIT(A) concluded in paragraph

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S. KRISHNA MARUTI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

iv) rather than under Section 35(2AB). The ld.CIT(A) held that the machines on which the claim of 100% of deduction under Section 35(1) is claimed being used research and development are separate and distinct from the machines which the assessee has used for the purpose of manufacturing process. Therefore, capital expenditure to the extent of Rs.3

M/S. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

35, it was held by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court that the offence of concealment is thus a direct 8 attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income-tax authorities”. The admission or rejection of a claim is a subjective exercise and whether a claim is accepted or rejected