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

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)

271/- being foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee on payment of foreign exchange to BHEL as per contract for acquisition of capital asset from abroad treating the same as capital expenditure ignoring the provisions of section 37 as well as section 43AA of the Income Tax Act r/w ICDs-VI issued u/s 145(2) of the Act. 08. That

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS PTY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 2 ITA No.3459/Del./2014 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :- “The Learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) - XXV, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] erred in law and facts by sustaining the penalty imposed on the appellant vide order dated

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

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

VIIA – basis of POCM Working for 8 VIID projects Page 4 of 144 16. TOR – 15 & 20 Reclassification of Income 321 326 8,15,68,758 Volume – VIII from House property Reconciliation of rental 326 329 4,49,85,573 income with TDS Certificate Notional Income from House 330 346 3,27,52,542 properties 17. TOR – 20 Compensation paid

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. (HUDCO), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. (HUDCO), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

M/S HOUSING & URBAN DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantsl. No.

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 3,27,500) 19 ITA Nos. 4303/Del/2009; 1166 to1168/Del/2012; 3365 & 3366/Del/2013; 1561 & 1562/Del/2012 Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. 9.4 Once, the condition of dissatisfaction is fulfilled; the issue left before us is to decide the quantum of disallowance. We have seen that in assessment years

KAVITA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of the particulars of income.” 10.1 The Ld. first appellate authority has upheld the disallowance by relying on the appellate order passed by him in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. The Ld AR has filed a copy of the appellate

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of the particulars of income.” 10.1 The Ld. first appellate authority has upheld the disallowance by relying on the appellate order passed by him in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. The Ld AR has filed a copy of the appellate

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of the particulars of income.” 10.1 The Ld. first appellate authority has upheld the disallowance by relying on the appellate order passed by him in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. The Ld AR has filed a copy of the appellate

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of the particulars of income.” 10.1 The Ld. first appellate authority has upheld the disallowance by relying on the appellate order passed by him in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. The Ld AR has filed a copy of the appellate

CRAYONS ADVERTISING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

36(l)(vii) of the Act and alternatively as business loss under section 28 of the Act. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. Apropos Ground No.1. 3. On this issue, the Assessing Officer noted that vide letter