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

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

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(2) and Section 13(3) of the Act. 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 34 of 40 29. It is now necessary to examine the other two questions of law. We may take up the applicability of Section 68

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)

13. Section 144B of the Act [as it stood at relevant time- prior to amendment by Financial Act, 2022] statutorily mandates the procedure to be followed by the NFAC while conducting faceless assessment, with sub-section (1) thereto clearly providing, “…..the assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144, in cases

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

13 of 22 CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that on identical facts, penalty had been deleted by the predecessor of the CIT(A) in the case of GE Caledonian Ltd. and GE Aviation Service Operation LLP for the AY 2011-12. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

68 in Meera Devi’s case. These clearly reflected that but for the search and seizure and subsequent proceedings, the two assessees had no intention of disclosing the income and had in fact indulged in concealing their income and amounts which had to be taxed in their original returns. This omission clearly amounted to conduct that attracted Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

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

68 in Meera Devi’s case. These clearly reflected that but for the search and seizure and subsequent proceedings, the two assessees had no intention of disclosing the income and had in fact indulged in concealing their income and amounts which had to be taxed in their original returns. This omission clearly amounted to conduct that attracted Section

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

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANGEL CEMENT PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

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 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