HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

36, page 128 of this order the Hon'ble Court has observed as follows. "A bare reading of Section 271(1)(c) would show that to initiate penalty proceedings following pre-requisites should obtain. (i) The Assessing Officer should be satisfied that:- a)The assessee has either concealed particulars of his Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT income

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

36, page 128 of this order the Hon'ble Court has observed as follows. "A bare reading of Section 271(1)(c) would show that to initiate penalty proceedings following pre-requisites should obtain. (i) The Assessing Officer should be satisfied that:- a)The assessee has either concealed particulars of his Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT income

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

36, page 128 of this order the Hon'ble Court has observed as follows. "A bare reading of Section 271(1)(c) would show that to initiate penalty proceedings following pre-requisites should obtain. (i) The Assessing Officer should be satisfied that:- a)The assessee has either concealed particulars of his Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT income

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

u/s 271 (1 )(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.Com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC): 1. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com

JAYANTI DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vii. With respect to the provision of information to the assessee, he submitted that para number 2 of the letter dated 18/7/2013 gives the complete information and source the account number, bank account, et cetera. So, no further information was available with the assessing officer and the complete information available with AO was provided to the assessee. He further stated

NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

vii) of the Income Tax Act to the assessee for respective years as well as in AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 of allowability of loss on securities. . 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3704/Del/2010:- “1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim amounting

M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,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

36,937/- which comprised of two figures (i) Rs. 17,28,48,148/- for entry tax subsidy and (ii) 31,10,88,789/- for electricity duty subsidy. The AO thus has held that; “a) The preposition that the sales proceeds contain (hypothetical) sales tax ‘Subsidy’ is a stretch of imagination apparently to evade tax. 12 ITA No. 3052/Del/2014

INDIA INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI

u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. Once the assessee has\ntransferred the amount of 2,47,49,51,000/- in the special reserve,\ncould be allowed for the amount over and above, the actual amount\ncharged to Profit & Loss Account as transferred to special reserve.\nThe limits provided in section 36(1)(viii) of the Act with respect

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

u/s 271(1)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said HC decision had not considered the provisions of sec.292B, also notes that

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 133(6) of the Act at the designated address. Under the provisions of the Act, the onus of proving that expenditure has wholly and exclusively related to the business of the appellant and that the same was incurred on account of commercial expediency rests solely on the appellant itself. It is the responsibility of the appellant to advance evidence

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD..,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2). It was submitted that the entire question of allowability of the Write off of Bad Debts has hinged upon in interpreting the legal nuances regarding the test of application of section 36(1)(vii) read with sec. 36(2) of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the facts

SATYENDRA NATH KUCKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vii)(a) of the 6 ITA No.2898/Del./2013 ITA No.2973/Del./2015 Act which pertains to immovable property only; that the assessee’s case is covered u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. 10. However, on the other hand, to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee, the ld. DR for the Revenue contended that nomination letter

SH. SATYENDRA NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vii)(a) of the 6 ITA No.2898/Del./2013 ITA No.2973/Del./2015 Act which pertains to immovable property only; that the assessee’s case is covered u/s 56(2)(vi) of the Act. 10. However, on the other hand, to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee, the ld. DR for the Revenue contended that nomination letter

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

36(1)(vii) under the Act, and therefore, such a decision is not applicable and he proceeded to make a disallowance. Later on, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra) has reversed the findings of Special Bench and for this reason the matter was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the quantum

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

penalty proceedings, if any, to the 15 assessee, alongwith the demand notice, specifying the sum payable by, or refund of any amount due to, the assessee on the basis of such assessment;” 30. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that section 144B clearly mandates that notwithstanding the provisions of section 143, NFAC shall pass the final

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act. ii. that merely claiming deduction by the assessee bank u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act on the strength of amending provisions by Finance Act, 2009 does not amount to 11 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in any manner whatsoever. iii. that when the assessee

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act. ii. that merely claiming deduction by the assessee bank u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act on the strength of amending provisions by Finance Act, 2009 does not amount to 11 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in any manner whatsoever. iii. that when the assessee

M/S. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act. ii. that merely claiming deduction by the assessee bank u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act on the strength of amending provisions by Finance Act, 2009 does not amount to 11 ITA Nos.1616 to 1621/Del./2014 concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in any manner whatsoever. iii. that when the assessee