SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

90,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also disallowed deduction claimed of Rs.51,02,718/- under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer while making the aforesaid additions also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that the assessee has concealed the particulars

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 271(1)(c)/271A and 271AAB of the Act have been passed on 12/10/2021 for the years under consideration. Aggrieved by the penalty orders the assessee preferred the Appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide orders dated 29/12/2022 and 26/12/2022 dismissed the Appeals filed by the assessee. As against the orders

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

90,455/-etc., 4. The assessee furnished submissions on various dates to the show cause notice during complete scrutiny assessment. With respect to the cash deposits, it was stated that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 3,97,06,452/- in HDFC Bank Ltd. The source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,95,56,047/- was only

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that since it had disclosed all the material facts to the AO, it cannot be said that it had concealed particulars of income. However, the AO has observed on this issue and has relied

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that since it had disclosed all the material facts to the AO, it cannot be said that it had concealed particulars of income. However, the AO has observed on this issue and has relied

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

ABHINAV INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 56(2)(viib) is an anti abuse provision and any addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) is liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). As regards the disallowance of interest, it is found that the appellant company has taken interest bearing loan and given it as interest free loan to its I.T.A No.7822/Del/2019 5 sister concerns. The appellant has also

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

section 40(a)(i) of the Act; disallowance u/s 35(2)(AB) of the Act at INR 1,76,87,054/- and relief claimed u/s 90 of the Act of INR 24,37,344/- was restricted to NIL. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

90,47,285/- respectively. Since the tax payable under section 115JB of the Act on book profits is more than the tax payable on income under normal provisions of the Act the Assessing Officer assessed the income under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders dated 21.10.2019 and 23.10.2019 for the assessment years

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

90,47,285/- respectively. Since the tax payable under section 115JB of the Act on book profits is more than the tax payable on income under normal provisions of the Act the Assessing Officer assessed the income under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed penalty orders dated 21.10.2019 and 23.10.2019 for the assessment years

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 04,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax ("the Joint CIT").Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March