ATMA RAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

80G-Rs. 54,90,452/- 2 Atma Ram Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2. Non-Current investments: Rs. 59,53,24,036/- 3. Cash Deposits: Rs. 3,97,06,452/- 4. Purchases: Rs. 4,04,91,936/- 5. Rental Income: Rs.8,86,14,791/- 6. Sales of service: Rs.9,66,05,036/- 7. Aggregate other Income

SMS CONCAST AG,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The assessing officer restricted the deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Act for an amount Of Rs. 1,61,05,733/-. 3. The assessing officer completed the assessment on the taxable income amounting Rs.35,98,970/- after disallowing the deduction u/s 80HHC and 80IA of the Act. Aggrieved the order

L T FOODS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 80IA is concerned is same restored by the\ntribunal to AO. Since, the assessee has not concealed income nor\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income then no penalty can be\nimposed on the assessee. Thus, we allowed the appeal of the assessee\nand deleted the penalty levied by the AO.\n12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

SHERVANI HOSPITALITIES LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated and vide order dated 29th January, 2009, penalty of Rs.16,44,330/- was imposed inter-alia observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate the explanation regarding additions/disallowances made in the assessment order resulting in reduction of returned loss. It was observed that the losses claimed could not be justified before

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

80G deduction was reduced to 50%. In this background, 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

MUKUT BEHARI LAL BHARGAVA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

80G and u/s 80GGA, respectively. Ground No. IV That the Ld. ACIT grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 () (c) of the Act, which is consequential.” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 30.07.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 68,30,670/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

80G of the Act of Rs. 7,026 allegedly holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, quantum appeal in respect of the said disallowance was decided against the appellant. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act with respect

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

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

271 AAD of the Act by the Ld. AO.\n12. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in\nupholding the levying of interest under section 234B of the\nAct by the Ld. AO.\n13. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such\nfurther grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case

SHREE KRISHNA JANMASHTMI MAHOTSAV SAMITI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 2(1), DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalshri Krishna Janmashtmi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahotsav Samiti Exemption, Ward 2(1) G4 Goenka Apartment, Civic Centre, Minto Road 19/41 Punjabi Bagh New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeas0987K Appellant .. Respondent

80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Its principal activities relate to organizing religious and cultural events (notably Janmashtami Mahotsav), establishment of Ashrams, and publication of spiritual and religious literature. As for AY 2014-15, the appellant filed a NIL return claiming exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The AO framed assessment under Section

MUKUT BEHARI LAL BHARGAVA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE(2)1, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

80G and u/s 80GGA, respectively. Ground No. IV That the Ld. ACIT grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, which is consequential. That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In Ground of appeal

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. BHAI HOSPITAL TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Garg & Sh. N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito (E) Bhai Hospital Trust Trust Ward-Iii Vs 55, Hanuman Road, Laxmi Nagar Distt. Centre Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-1100001 Pan No.Aaatb0492M (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act. 6. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings and on perusal of the financial statements the AO formed a belief that the very insignificant efforts or financial inputs have been made towards the attainment of the basic object of the establishment and maintenance of a hospital or any associated activity in this direction

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) is proposed to be initiated separately. 73. Strong objections were raised before the DRP. Before the DRP, once again attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee’s own case but the objections of the assessee did not find any favour with the DRP who confirmed

BMW INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 478/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 562/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Bmw India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, Building No. 11, The Oberoi Circle-10(1), Corporate Tower, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb8986G Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

section 80G of INR 9,62,500. ITA Nos. 478 & 562/Del/2022 4 BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has grossly erred in granting short deduction of taxes deducted at source of INR 5,25,600. General 11 On facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty

BMW INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 478/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 562/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Bmw India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, Building No. 11, The Oberoi Circle-10(1), Corporate Tower, Dlf Cyber City, Delhi Phase-2, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb8986G Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2023

section 80G of INR 9,62,500. ITA Nos. 478 & 562/Del/2022 4 BMW India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has grossly erred in granting short deduction of taxes deducted at source of INR 5,25,600. General 11 On facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDII CIT NATIONAL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 802/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 & Sa No. 102/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has filed appeal against the addition made by the Assessing officer on Transfer Pricing issues as well as Corporate Tax issues. 4 SA No. 102/Del/2022 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. 4. (As per DRP) Briefly stated, based on the Inter-Company Commission Agreement with Microsoft Operations

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

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

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

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

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA