M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

68 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi) In compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

68 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi) In compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

68 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi) In compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and they would

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3). According to him, both in respect of the advances made to APIL and the debit balances in the account of Charanjiv Educational Society, there was a violation of the above statutory provisions disentitling the assessee from the benefit of exemption under Section 11. The addition made under Section 68

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11 of 22 Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made by the AO, on which penalty has now been levied. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

11. It is respectfully submitted that the assessment completed under section 143(3)/ 144C of the Act is illegal and bad in law since the same has been passed in gross violation of provisions of sections 144B, 144C of the Act as also principles of natural justice inasmuch as: (a) the impugned assessment has been completed without passing

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

68,000 Deduct : Closing Balance 8,78,80,000 8,78,80,000 78,55,52,000 78,94,88,000 Application Application of loan 5,50,00,000 (ii) ADIP-SSA Scheme Opening Balance 1,95,97,000 1,95,97,000 Grant received during 20,45,00,000 20,45,00,000 the year Total

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

68,000 Deduct : Closing Balance 8,78,80,000 8,78,80,000 78,55,52,000 78,94,88,000 Application Application of loan 5,50,00,000 (ii) ADIP-SSA Scheme Opening Balance 1,95,97,000 1,95,97,000 Grant received during 20,45,00,000 20,45,00,000 the year Total

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

68 of the Income Tax Act for unproved cash credit. 5. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. After completion of assessment the penalty orders were made. The assessees appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals of Meeri Devi were dismissed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

68 of the Income Tax Act for unproved cash credit. 5. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. After completion of assessment the penalty orders were made. The assessees appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals of Meeri Devi were dismissed

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

68, the Calcutta High Court, while constructing the expression " expenditure incurred " in s. 44A of the Act, observed : "depreciation claimed shall include the expenditure incurred." There are only two recognised methods of accounting : (1) cash basis, and (ii) mercantile basis. Under the cash basis only cash transactions are recorded. It is only cash receipts and cash payments which find entries

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1,738/- - Share Capital – section 68 7. Kasper Information Technology 28.03.20 2013- 143(3) 22.09.2013 Pvt. Ltd. 16 14 16,00,00,000 2,47,050/- - Share Capital – section 68 8. Landsky Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 31.03.20 2013- 143(3) 22.09.2013 - Share Capital – section 68 15 14 16,00,00,000 2,48,450/- - Advances – section