DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

271(l)(c) of Income Tax Act were also initiated for asstt. year 2005-06 by the Ld. AO. For asstt. year 2006-07 also, the assessee revised the original return and filed the revised return u/s 139(5) o f I. T. Act on 31.10.2007 withdrawing the deduction claimed u/s 801B amounting to Rs. 45,16,523/-. Though

ADITYA DUROBUILD PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT,CC-7, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiaditya Durobuild Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Dgl-216, Dlg Galleria Mayur Central Circle-7, Palace, Mayur Vihar, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaeca9706A (Appellant) (Respondent)

801B at Rs. 2829995/- was duly supported by certificate in prescribed Form No. 10CCB and Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB duly signed by the auditors and already filed before the AO and thus there is no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. 5. Without prejudice the Ld. CIT(A) has totally ignored the submissions of the Appellant

ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2007-08]

section 801B(10) was restricted toRs.3, 19,714/-.” 4. On the aforesaid addition, penalty of Rs.2,30,58,990/- was imposed, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Against this order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee summarized in brief

M/S K.T.M INDIA,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. We will first take up the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2529/Del/2011. In the said appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,14,777/- on account of pro rata interest on loan given to sister concern u/s

ACIT, PANIPAT vs. M/S K.T.M INDIA, PANIPAT

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. We will first take up the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2529/Del/2011. In the said appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,14,777/- on account of pro rata interest on loan given to sister concern u/s

M/S. K.T.M INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. We will first take up the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2529/Del/2011. In the said appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,14,777/- on account of pro rata interest on loan given to sister concern u/s

M/S. K.T.M INDIA,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, HARYANA

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. We will first take up the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2529/Del/2011. In the said appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,14,777/- on account of pro rata interest on loan given to sister concern u/s

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

801B read with Section 80A(4). The intention does not appear to be to deny relief under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(4) or to whittle down the ambit of those provisions as is sought to be suggested by Mr. Manchanda. Also, he is not right in contending that the decisions of the High Courts referred to above

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42 \nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously