M/S. BONY POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Before Suchitra Kamble

u/s 272A(2)(k) and that too without giving an opportunity of being heard on the aspect. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in making the impugned penalty is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

147 was initiated vide issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 10.01.2017 by ACIT (E), Circle 1(1), Delhi by recording reasons to believe. The copy of reasons recorded have been placed in the paper book on pages 104 to 127 which for the sake of ready reference is incorporated hereunder:- “1. Details of information received through Tax Evasion Petition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

272A(2)(k) of the Act, thereby, penalizing the assesseee for non-deduction of TDS and for failure to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within time prescribed in sub Section 3 of Section 200 or the proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 206 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the penalty order

RMP HOLDING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI vs. RMP HOLDING (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

R.N. KHEMKA ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 20(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2007-08

reassessment proceedings collapses when they have denied that they have not provided any bogus entry to the assessee company. When the witness of the AO themselves corroborate the stand of the assessee, then it completely dislodges the case of the AO sans any adverse material. Though exact statement has neither been referred in the assessment order nor in the first

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

M/S. UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention

UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY C/O NIMT COLLEGE,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, RANGE- 2 , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

147 read with Section 148, ignoring the fact that the same was bad in the eye of law as the conditions and procedure prescribed under the statute have not been satisfied and complied with. III. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention