KISSAN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of addition on account of surrender of additional income. The penalty for concealment so confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) on this count is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law.” 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment framed under section

JAGAT SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated………” 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was not leviable. 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because no specific date of non compliance

JAGAT SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated………” 4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) was not leviable. 5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is liable to be deleted, because no specific date of non compliance

M/S. DELHI SURGICAL & DRESSING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.5058/Del/2016 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

50C of the IT Act. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.13,23,400/- made by the AO. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and levied penalty of Rs.3,78,030/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied. 5. Aggrieved with such

SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAMLI

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

50C of the Act. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the actual sales consideration received by the assessee is at variance with 2 the sale consideration declared by the assessee in the return of income. Since, the addition has been made by AO invoking deeming section, penalty u/s. 271

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. AO erred in calculating tax and tax demand and thus it is a mistake apparent from record u/s 154 of the Act. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. AO erred in holding

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

2) of the Act. Page 5 of 55 5.4 The Ld. DRP has erred in observing that reference to valuation officer at the fag end of the limitation was not possible. 5.5 It is prayed before Hon’ble ITAT that addition u/s 50C of the Act made by the Ld AO may kindly be deleted. Addition to Books profits u/s

SH. RAVI DUTT SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiravi Dutt Sharma, Ito, C/O. L. M. Agarwal & Co., Ward-2(2), Vs. Chartered Accountant, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan:Acqps6788M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. 4. Before us ld AR submitted that claim of the exemption of agricultural land u/s 2(14)(iii) and claim of deduction of interest are rejected and further, sales value has been adopted as per circle rate by invoking section 50C

BABITA KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

2 ITA.No.4707/Del./2018 Smt. Babita Khurana, New Delhi. seizure operation was conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on 9th October, 2013 on the business premises of the assessee comprising Shubhkamna Buildtech Group of cases. Notice under section 153A was issued and the assessee, in response thereto, declared total income of Rs.14,19,729/-. The assessing officer

M/S RAJSHREE STEELS PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed, accordingly

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2007-08 M/S Rajshree Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Now Known As Rajshree Infratech Ward-15(2), New Delhi. (P) Ltd.), 17, Meera Tower (First Floor) Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Pan: Aaacr 4386 D ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Adhir K. Samal Ca Respondent By : Ms. Kesong Y. Sherpa Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2016. Date Of Order : 10/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty so sustained by the Ld CIT (A) is bad in law and may please be deleted. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law while confirming the levy & imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition of Rs. 43,75,000/- made u/s

KRISHNA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 24/11/2017 and sustained the addition, further directed the AO to re-compute the capital gain

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on the addition / surrender made merely by virtue of deeming provisions of section 50C without appreciating the law that the deeming provisions of section 50C does not ipso facto

ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding penalty under section 271(1)(c) imposed on the addition / surrender made merely by virtue of deeming provisions of section 50C without appreciating the law that the deeming provisions of section 50C does not ipso facto

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for considering the value assessed by stamp duty authority as deemed consideration for computation of capital gain on sale of property are subjective to the facts and merits of the case. That the Assessing Authority could have referred the matter to the valuation officer u/s 50C(2) of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2) and 142(1) and served on the assessee through ITBA. In response, the assessee submitted relevant details and clarifications from time to time. The return of income u/s 139 of the Act was filed on 14.01.2022 declaring income of Rs.6,54,15,120/-. 3. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with section 153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. DIVINE IFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case that there is actual loss of revenue. 3. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90