THE MAMURPUR CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 38, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

80P of the Act. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. The scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26/12/2016 at total income of ₹ 1,03,830/-in the status of Association of persons (AOP). Thereafter, learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalty of ₹ 36,45,841/- vide

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 3533/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

b. Assessee claimed deduction u/s 80 P (2) of the Act for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09. On coming to know the error that this deduction is not available to the assessee, assessee withdrew the deductions for both the year. Penalty proceedings were initiated in both the years. In this assessment year penalty u/s 271 (1) ( c) was levied

M/S MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

M/S MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

M/S. M.NAGAR DISTT. CO-OP DEVELOPMENT FED. LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

MUZAFFARNAGAR DISTT. COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamble

section 80P(2)(e) of the I.T. Act. The Learned CIT (A) went wrong on facts and in law to sustain the disallowance. The adverse and erroneous findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) deserve to be quashed and the exemption, as claimed, deserves to be allowed. 3(a). That the declared version in the Printing Press Division was well

THE JEEVAN SANCHAY COOPERATIVE URBAN THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-53(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 8070/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Jeevan Sanchay Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer, Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-53(1), New Delhi B-66, Bk Dutt Colony, New Delhi (Pan:Aadat6757F) (Assessee) (Respondent)

B-66, BK Dutt Colony, New Delhi (PAN:AADAT6757F) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv, Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA & Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-18, Gurgaon relating to Assessment Year

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

2,01,58,524/- in cash respectively without reasonable cause, the Ld. JCIT imposed the impugned penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 6. The assessee challenged the penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter alia that these have been imposed after the expiry of limitation period provided under section

DELHI STATE TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT CREDIT & SERVICES SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE - 60, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

2,01,58,524/- in cash respectively without reasonable cause, the Ld. JCIT imposed the impugned penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act respectively. 6. The assessee challenged the penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act on grounds, inter alia that these have been imposed after the expiry of limitation period provided under section

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

ACIT SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM & TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI vs. DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

DELHI TOURISM TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on merit as well, as discussed above. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same 15.9 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 178 TAXMAN 422], taken a view regarding the non-filing of Form 10CCB

ALLIED FINANCE P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Co-Operative Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Union Ltd., Ward-1(2), Cane Union, Hapur, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaajc0224M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2012-13

B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Co-operative Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Union Ltd., Ward-1(2), Cane Union, Hapur, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh PAN: AAAJC0224M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. NATIONAL HOUSING BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) states that where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of an assessee, the assessee offers no explanation or where an assessee offers an explanation, which he is ITA No. 625/2017+connected Page 3 of 16 not able