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

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

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

C)/GGM/Cent./Dev Wines/2020- 21/969 dated 24.08.2020 has been given concurrence and requested for centralization of the following cases related M/s. Dev Wines Group to DC11, Central Circle 2, Faridabad for coordinated post search investigation & meaningful assessment Accordingly, in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

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

12 of 22 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had been deleted in the case of Rolls Royce, which formed the bedrock and sole basis of the addition made

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

C was `.3,57,410/- (1999-2000), `.37,12,580/- (2000-2001); `.55,31,900/- (2001- 2002), `.8,76,740/- (2002-2003); `.18,67,320/- (2003-2004). For the last year the Assessing Officer found that the income liable to be taxed was `.20,05,584/- on account of an addition of `.7,02,964/- made under Section 68

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

C was `.3,57,410/- (1999-2000), `.37,12,580/- (2000-2001); `.55,31,900/- (2001- 2002), `.8,76,740/- (2002-2003); `.18,67,320/- (2003-2004). For the last year the Assessing Officer found that the income liable to be taxed was `.20,05,584/- on account of an addition of `.7,02,964/- made under Section 68

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

68 of the Act? 21. We may first take up the fundamental question as to whether the assessee was ineligible for the exemption under Section 11 on the ground that there was contravention of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3) of the Act. It is necessary to briefly notice

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)

12. Each of the aforesaid contention is briefly elaborated hereunder: Re (a): Assessment completed without issuance of show cause notice cum draft assessment order prior to draft order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act and without providing opportunity of hearing is bad in law 13. Section 144B of the Act [as it stood at relevant time

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), 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

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. 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