TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

40A(2)(b) and the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in determining the profit of the assessee @ 3.78% equal to the profit of one of the parties to the JV. Penalty u/s 271G: 11. Facts of the case are as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products Ltd. ('TPPL') and M/s JITF Water Infrastructure Ltd. ('JWIL') had entered into

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

2. There is no direction to As demonstrated above, during the initiate penalty course of e the assessment proceedings, proceedings in the the AO had e, satisfaction that appellant assessment order, had concealed ) some very vital therefore, provisions of transactions relating to of issue and section 271(18) would not transfer of the shares and had not come come

M/S. RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Ground 8: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in proposing to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. DRP's Findings: This ground is of consequential nature. Penalty proceedings are separate proceedings. Therefore, the objection

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

2. Disallowance is merely on payments have been made in contravention of section 40A(3) of The ground that Act. It is relevant to submit that aggregate cash payment of Rs. 24,24,212/- has been made to MMTC which is Government of India undertaking for purchase of silver and as such provisions of section 40A(3) read with Rule

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

2. Disallowance is merely on payments have been made in contravention of section 40A(3) of The ground that Act. It is relevant to submit that aggregate cash payment of Rs. 24,24,212/- has been made to MMTC which is Government of India undertaking for purchase of silver and as such provisions of section 40A(3) read with Rule

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

40A(3) 67,926/- which were subject matter of Appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but were upheld in the Quantum Appeal. I have gone through the submissions of the Appellant but do not find the same. The appellant has not been able to place a bonafide explanation as required u/s 271 (1 )(c) with respect to above claim. In fact

NEETU GUPTA,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GURGAON

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Sudhir Pareek

271(1)(b) of the Act, the Ld. AO in the course of any proceedings under this Act, if satisfied that any person has failed to comply with a notice U/s 142(1) or 143(2) of the Act, may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such failure

JAYSON INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

JAYSON INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-63(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

JAYSON INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

M/S. JAYSON INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE to ground no.s 2 & 2.1 above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that granting of loans was not "Substantial Business" of the lender. 4. That the lower authorities failed to appreciate the nature of appellants' business and in holding the expenditure as personal in nature, without

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

40A(2)(b). 24. At point 25-31, the assessee company has furnished details of opening/closing stock, sales, purchases, imports & exports. At point 32 & 33, details regarding the expenses have been furnished. At point 34. preliminary expenses claimed during the year under the assessment is Rs. 4.800/- claimed as per the provisions of section 35D. At point

GAUTAM CHADHA L/H MRS. RATNA CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 28(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

40A(2b) of the Act. 2.1 On appeal, the then Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28-03-2013 passed in Assessee’s Appeal 229/2011-12, affirmed the said additions . 3. Consequently the Assessing Officer issued various notices dated 30.12.2011; 12.3.2015 and 2.11.2016 u/s 274 of the Act and ultimately levied the penalty to the tune

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c); though no separate addition was made considering the disallowance of higher amount on account of bogus purchases. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in adjudicating the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act when the assessee had not taken any ground

TATA STEEL LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF ANGUL ENERGY LIMITED),DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21

penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for under-reporting of income needs to be imposed.” 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in the following manner: “3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reference

I.P. CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO -12(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR.” 3. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.04.2016 which was received back with remarks “left”. Again notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued for 12.07.2016 which was not received back. None appeared on 12.07.2016. Fresh notice under Section 143(2

ELTEK SGS PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. I.P. Constructions Private Vs. Acit, Limited, 210 First Floor, Phool Circle-12(2), Singh Market Main, Delhi Vikas Marg, New Delhi Pin 1100 92 Pan No. Aabci4548K (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in Audit Report and ITR.” 3. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 11.04.2016 which was received back with remarks “left”. Again notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued for 12.07.2016 which was not received back. None appeared on 12.07.2016. Fresh notice under Section 143(2

M/S. HIND INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediam/S. Hind Industries Ltd, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of A-1, Okhla Industrial Area, Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach0870N Assessee By : None Revenue By: Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023

2) That the disallowance of Rs.61,39,71,805/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by CIT (Appeals) u/s 40A(3) of the Act on account of non-genuineness of purchases, while accepting the sales as genuine, is arbitrary, based on presumptions and assumptions and bad in law. 3) That meat, which is an animal product, the payments related