DHARAM PAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -42(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Consequent to the passing of assessment order, the penalty proceedings have been initiated against the assessee and an order of penalty came to be passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by order dated 30/07/2017. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 30/07/2017, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Kashyap & Co., Cas, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazpa6461C Assessee By : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the following grounds: i) That the ld. CIT (A) has not considered the various facts before passing the order. ii) That assessee had bona fide reasons for claiming deduction u/s 24 and section 80C

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5432/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5433/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Kashyap & Co., Cas, Tax, Central Circle-1, 214, Citi Centre, Begum Faridabad Bridge Road, Meerut-250001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazpa6461C Assessee By : Sh. P. S. Kashyap, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.11.2019

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the following grounds: i) That the ld. CIT (A) has not considered the various facts before passing the order. ii) That assessee had bona fide reasons for claiming deduction u/s 24 and section 80C

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2008-09 Vijay Aggarwal Dcit C/O M/S. Kashyap & Co. Vs Central Circle- 1 Cas, 214, Citi Centre, Faridabad Begum Bridge Road, Meerut – 250001 Pan No. Aazpa6461C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80C also applies only if the repayment is made for loans taken for acquiring house property assets. In the present cases, it has been established that loan was not taken for the purpose of acquiring asset as asset was already acquired before disbursement of loan. Therefore, we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A) to this effect also

MR. VIJAY AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years: 2008-09 Vijay Aggarwal Dcit C/O M/S. Kashyap & Co. Vs Central Circle- 1 Cas, 214, Citi Centre, Faridabad Begum Bridge Road, Meerut – 250001 Pan No. Aazpa6461C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80C also applies only if the repayment is made for loans taken for acquiring house property assets. In the present cases, it has been established that loan was not taken for the purpose of acquiring asset as asset was already acquired before disbursement of loan. Therefore, we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A) to this effect also

RAM LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-33(4), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee against the penalty proceedings stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 33(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L & Ay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 24(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L

80C as claimed by the assessee and has further erred in directing the Ld.AO in this regard. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld.AO in making addition of Rs.90,23,000/- by treating it as alleged unexplained cash deposits

SH. RAM LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee against the penalty proceedings stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 33(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L & Ay: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Lal Ito, Ward 24(4) C/O M/S Rra New Delhi Vs. Taxindia D-28, South Extension Part I New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Accpl5384L

80C as claimed by the assessee and has further erred in directing the Ld.AO in this regard. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld.AO in making addition of Rs.90,23,000/- by treating it as alleged unexplained cash deposits

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI OM PRAKASH AGGARWAL, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 18.07.2016. 11. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under :- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case properly. 2. Whether on the facts

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI OM PRAKASH AGGARWAL, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide his order dated 18.07.2016. 11. The grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue read as under :- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case properly. 2. Whether on the facts

GURMEET KAUR KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 45(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmasmt. Gurmeet Kaur Kalra, Vs. Acit, Gb-8, Shivaji Vihar, Circle 45(1), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi Pan No. Afhpk8679R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was imposed on the assessee. 3. In appeal however the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of penalty and assessee has come before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal : “The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to one another : That on the facts

SH. MINAKETAN SAMAL,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

Penalty provision u/s 271(1 )(c) of the IT act is also attracted. Addition Rs. 2,75,906/-“ 3. Though the Appellant challenged the said additions as well as the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act before the ld. Commissioner, however, except filing adjournment applications and appearing once on 16.01.2014 and filing rejoinder dated 15.01.2014, neither attended

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, ITA No.1108/Del/2016 is partly allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

penalty. 2. The grounds of appeal in quantum appeal being ITA No.1108/Del/2016 reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer: 1. in passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.1

RAJESH KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), GURGAON

In the result, ITA No.1108/Del/2016 is partly allowed and ITA

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

penalty. 2. The grounds of appeal in quantum appeal being ITA No.1108/Del/2016 reads as under:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer: 1. in passing order u/s 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs.1

OM PRAKASH KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9(RENUMBERED CC-18), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.638 To 641/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11

Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is separately issued on this account.” 5.1 Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) that the content of Annexure A-2 page 1 which is the foundation for addition for the years involved in these appeals require no interference. The respective grounds raised by assesse in quantum appeals have no substance. 6. The second

OM PRAKASH KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9(RE-NUMBERED CC-18), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.638 To 641/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11

Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is separately issued on this account.” 5.1 Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) that the content of Annexure A-2 page 1 which is the foundation for addition for the years involved in these appeals require no interference. The respective grounds raised by assesse in quantum appeals have no substance. 6. The second

OM PRAKASH KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9(RENUMBERED CC-18), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.638 To 641/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11

Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is separately issued on this account.” 5.1 Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) that the content of Annexure A-2 page 1 which is the foundation for addition for the years involved in these appeals require no interference. The respective grounds raised by assesse in quantum appeals have no substance. 6. The second

OM PRAKASH KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIECLE-9(RENUMBERED CC-18), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.638 To 641/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11

Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is separately issued on this account.” 5.1 Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) that the content of Annexure A-2 page 1 which is the foundation for addition for the years involved in these appeals require no interference. The respective grounds raised by assesse in quantum appeals have no substance. 6. The second

OM PRAKASH KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -9(RE-NUMBERED CC-18), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.638 To 641/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11

Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) is separately issued on this account.” 5.1 Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) that the content of Annexure A-2 page 1 which is the foundation for addition for the years involved in these appeals require no interference. The respective grounds raised by assesse in quantum appeals have no substance. 6. The second