SMT. RITA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri C. M. Garg

801, taxed the sum of Rs. 000/- u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the appellant. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income initiated in respect of the sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- charged to tax u/s 2(22)(e) by the AO were concluded vide impugned order

M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act, for short) by Ld. CIT (Appeal), in the aforesaid appeal levied by the A.O. rejecting the claim of the Appellant-Assessee u/s 80IA of the Act. 2. Most respectfully the following humble submissions based on facts as well as applicable statutory provisions are made here- in-under

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act, for short) by Ld. CIT (Appeal), in the aforesaid appeal levied by the A.O. rejecting the claim of the Appellant-Assessee u/s 80IA of the Act. 2. Most respectfully the following humble submissions based on facts as well as applicable statutory provisions are made here- in-under

PLAZA PARTNERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6728/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Plaza Partners, Vs Acit, 301-303, Mercantile House, 15, Circle-52(1), K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffp2318B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2021

271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 That the impugned penalty order of the AO is invalid and void ab initio, since framed in absence of recording of specific satisfaction or 2 Plaza Partners levying of specific charge as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in the notice

RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

801/- total amount including opening balance reached Rs. 1,70,56,951/- and after writing off the amount of Rs. 66,05,955/- 3 during the relevant period, closing balance for the year was Rs. 1,04,50,996/-. The ld. AR drew our attention to Schedule XII and XV of the Statement of Account and also drew our attention

M/S. DURO TRADERS PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2004-05] M/S Duro Traders Private Ltd Vs. The Addl. C.I.T G-57-58, 1St Floor Noida Range Sector – 18, Noida Noida Pan No: Aabcd 9104 G [Appellant] [Respondent]

801/- arrived on the basis that this investment was made in AY 2004-05 but bills of which were accounted for in AY 2005-06 ignoring the fact that the suppliers raised bills in AY 2005-06 for the material supplied in AY 2004-05. The ld. counsel for the assessee concluded by stating that in view of the above

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. PAWAN KUMAR MALHOTRA, PROP., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Asstt.Commissioner Of Inome Tax, Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Circle –I, Block I-B, M/S Neumann Engineering New Cgo Complex, Work, 16/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Faridabad. H.No. 1506, Sector-15, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and emphasized that in the quantum proceedings, the ITAT had restored the disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer and in view of upholding of additions/disallowances by the ITAT, the penalty has been wrongly cancelled

ITO, HARIDWAR vs. M/S. MAHIMA UDYOG, UTTRAKHAND

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 271 as to on which charges the impugned penalty has been levied – whether concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, no proper satisfaction has been recorded by the AO for imposition of penalty. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory

TRIUNE ENERGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Ani Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmatriune Energy Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, B-1/H-4, Mohan Circle-25(2), Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi Mathura Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1045E

801/- on 10.03.2015. The Assessee contested the said assessment order before the ld CIT(A). As the appeal of the Assessee had been partly allowed by the ld CIT(A) vide appeal No. 334/15-16 dated 18.11.2016 by allowing ground of appeal on the addition on account of deprecation on intangibles of Rs. 2,40,79,042/-. Hence, the remaining additions

USK HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 27(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

section are illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction as assessing officer has not mentioned in notice U/s 271 (l)(c) under which violation he has issued notice. 2. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in imposing the penalty of Rs.4,27,082.00 U/s 271

ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI vs. AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN INDIA, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2009-10 Acit, Circle 32(1) Vs. American Chamber Of Commerce In India New Delhi 4/2, 4Th Floor Phd House Siri Institutional Area August Kranti Marg New Delhi 110 016

801/- on 30/09/09 and assessment was completed on 05/12/11 computing assessed income at Rs.33,07,420/-. During assessment proceedings Ld. AO observed that activities carried out by assessee in main aims and objects given in Memorandum of Association are found not to be charitable as per amendment to section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Accordingly

SHRI ARUN GOEL,,BIJNOR vs. ACIT, BIJNOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

801/- by making addition of Rs.2,59,000/- on account of income u/s 56(vi) representing gifts claimed not 2 taxable and received at the time of wedding anniversary and Rs.2,99,445/- which was treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 3. In so far as the expenditure relating to the agricultural income is concerned, the ledger

JAGAT PAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-35(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied for a sum of Rs.5,86,741/-. 4. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal and held as under :- “7.11 In the above cited decision the Ld. CIT(A) has treated the disclosure of short term capital gain as business income. She has also upheld the disallowance of expenses

DHOLADHAR INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,,H.P. vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

801 (SC), the transactions are to be viewed on the basis of surrounding circumstances and human conduct, which are against the assessee. Therefore, the additions on account of commission are also upheld.” Page 3 of 14 4. During the course of the penalty proceedings, the assessee besides various explanations, had strongly urged and submitted that, no opportunity to cross examine

SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5226/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 7057/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S Shring Construction Company Pvt. Vs Acit/Dcit, Ltd., D-245, Nehru Colony, Haridwar Circle-2, Road, Dehradun Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr4560L Assessee By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita Nos. 5226/Del/2016 &

u/s 40(a)(ia) 1st proviso stipulating allowability of such an expenditure claim “in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid”. We thus direct the learned Assessing Officer to consider and grant the benefit of section 40(a)(ia) 1st proviso to the assessee subject to verification of all the necessary relevant Shring

M/S SHRING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandraita No. 5226/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 7057/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S Shring Construction Company Pvt. Vs Acit/Dcit, Ltd., D-245, Nehru Colony, Haridwar Circle-2, Road, Dehradun Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr4560L Assessee By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals Ita Nos. 5226/Del/2016 &

u/s 40(a)(ia) 1st proviso stipulating allowability of such an expenditure claim “in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid”. We thus direct the learned Assessing Officer to consider and grant the benefit of section 40(a)(ia) 1st proviso to the assessee subject to verification of all the necessary relevant Shring

M/S. SHIVRIEM MEGAMARTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agarwal & Sh. Kul Bharatita No. 5724/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Act by framing the assessment. The assessing officer made additions in respect of estimation gross profit disallowance of depreciation disallowance of contribution of employees provident fund and the expenses payable. On appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of gross profit

SINGHAL EXIM P.LTYD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

801 (SC) relied upon by the Assessing Officer is not applicable. 5. Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that Section 68 is a deeming provision. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 133(6) to the alleged buyers of the mobile phones of the assessee. All 5 ITA-6520/Del/2018 the notices issued remained unserved. That the alleged buyers