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

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

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

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(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(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 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

OM PRAKASH KUKREJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CICLE-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 (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(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

M/S. FRUGAL DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

ARPIT GARG,GURGAON vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumar

section 80C. 6. That the impugned Assessment Order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principle of contemporary jurisprudence. 3. The grounds raised in Penalty appeal No. 3264/Del/2024 read as under :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed u/s

ARPIT GARG,GURGAON vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumar

section 80C. 6. That the impugned Assessment Order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principle of contemporary jurisprudence. 3. The grounds raised in Penalty appeal No. 3264/Del/2024 read as under :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed u/s