SH. SWAMI SHARAN GARG,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

46A and not considering the facts borne by cogent evidence before him. 4. That the L'd Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the agreement was executed on 01-12-2000 and after seven long years the Assessing Officer launched a manhunt for the purchaser company and its directors in October 2004. In this regard, he further failed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed is indicating fresh initiation of penalty is only figment of imagination of the AR. 6. Impugned order imposing As discussed above, the show cause penalty As is not speaking notices were issued and the reply order. tendered by the appellant has been reproduced in the order and reasons of rejection

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty under section 271.]” (C.2.1) On perusal of the aforesaid impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A), we find that the fact, that in earlier years the declared income of the assessee have been accepted by framing assessment U/s 143(3) of I.T. Act, has been considered favourably by Ld. CIT(A). However, in our view, the fact whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD vs. LAKHANI ARMAN SHOES PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. b. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has not erred in admitting evidence in violation of Rule 46A.” 2. Cross objections raised by the assessee are as under: 1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer

SADHANA PHOSPHATES & CHEMICALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITOW, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue is allowed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaisadhana Phosphates & Ito A Chemical Ltd. Ward-7(2) 304, South Delhi House Vs. New Delhi 12, Zamrudpur Community Centre, Kailash Colony New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aabcs5840G (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed for non-compliance without reasonable cause. Ld. DR submitted that it is very much apparent that assessee failed to cooperate with assessing officer to complete assessment as per directions of this Tribunal. He submitted that sufficient opportunities were granted to assessee, which was a futile exercise

RUKMANI WIRES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-21(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarrukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-1087, Dsiidc Industrial Circle-1(2), Complex Area, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr7552F

penalty u/s 271(1)( C ) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 57,98,464/-. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee company was engaged in the business of manufacturing of MS wires, bright steel bars, trading in iron and steel, acting as brokerage

M/S. PASHUPATI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

section are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 11. That the information filed and the material available on 'record are not properly considered and as such the order imposing penalty U/S 271 (1) (c) is illegal and bad in law. 12. That in any case the penalty imposed is unjust, arbitrary and highly excessive.” 2. The facts narrated

M/S SANRAJ ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charysanraj Engineering Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, A-4/B-1, Mohan Coop Indl. Estate, Ward-7(3), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccs6897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. S.S.Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Chary

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the fact that while the penalty proceedings had been initiated for alleged concealment of income, the same had been levied on grounds of alleged furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby rendering the same void ab-initio.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a company, filed their

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

penalty of Rs. 25,23,990/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) has ignored that the assessee concealed particulars of its income by claiming bogus expenses on various heads. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LAXMAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

penalty of Rs. 25,23,990/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) has ignored that the assessee concealed particulars of its income by claiming bogus expenses on various heads. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised above

M/S. H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The grounds

M/S H.B. LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 271(1)(c) on the impugned enhancement on account of allegedly wrong claim of losses and understatement of income attributable to derivative transactions for Assessment Year 2009-10 in question. 2. We shall first take up the quantum appeal in ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for adjudication purposes. I.T.As.2323 & 5089/Del/2015 2 ITA No.2323/Del/2015 for Assessment Year 2009-10 3. The grounds

M/S. SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3533/Del/2010 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No.1508/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner Splendor Forum, 5Th Floor, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jasola District Centre, Circle-9(1), New Delhi- 110025. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.3533/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner F-38/2, Splendor House Of Income Tax, Okhla Industries Area, Vs. Circle-9(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalties imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2.4 The respective grounds of appeal raised in the four appeals are as under: ITA No.3532/Del/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 1. That the entire assessment proceedings are null & void and being without jurisdiction since mandatory requirements of section 153C

M/S. SPLENDOR LANDBASE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3533/Del/2010 stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No.1508/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner Splendor Forum, 5Th Floor, Of Income Tax, Vs. Jasola District Centre, Circle-9(1), New Delhi- 110025. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.3533/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2008-09) M/S Splendor Landbase Limited Asst. Commissioner F-38/2, Splendor House Of Income Tax, Okhla Industries Area, Vs. Circle-9(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020. New Delhi. Pan –Aaeca 3986E (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalties imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2.4 The respective grounds of appeal raised in the four appeals are as under: ITA No.3532/Del/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 1. That the entire assessment proceedings are null & void and being without jurisdiction since mandatory requirements of section 153C

DCIT, SONEPAT vs. M/S ATLAS CYCLES (HARYANA) LTD.,, SONEPAT

In the result ITA Nos. 2489/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section, one of the conditions is that the expenditure should not be in the nature of capital expenditure. The question whether a particular expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital or revenue nature is always a complex and intricate issue. Such a question has to be considered and answered in the facts and circumstances of each case. In Assam

DCIT, SONEPAT vs. M/S ATLAS CYCLES (HARYANA) LTD.,, SONEPAT

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section, one of the conditions is that the expenditure should not be in the nature of capital expenditure. The question whether a particular expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital or revenue nature is always a complex and intricate issue. Such a question has to be considered and answered in the facts and circumstances of each case. In Assam

ADDL. CIT, SONEPAT vs. M/S ATLAS CYCLES HARYANA LTD., SONEPAT

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section, one of the conditions is that the expenditure should not be in the nature of capital expenditure. The question whether a particular expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital or revenue nature is always a complex and intricate issue. Such a question has to be considered and answered in the facts and circumstances of each case. In Assam

DCIT, SONEPAT vs. M/S ATLAS CYCLES (HARYANA) LTD.,, SONEPAT

In the result ITA Nos. 2484/Del/2011 and 4049/Del/2013 preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section, one of the conditions is that the expenditure should not be in the nature of capital expenditure. The question whether a particular expenditure incurred by the assessee is of capital or revenue nature is always a complex and intricate issue. Such a question has to be considered and answered in the facts and circumstances of each case. In Assam