OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

234B of the Act. 8. That the interest under section 234A had been charged at Rs. 201623 stating that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act dated 21.04.2013. It may be mentioned that for filing settlement application under section 245C 1 of the Act, there was no requirement

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

234B of the Act. 8. That the interest under section 234A had been charged at Rs. 201623 stating that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act dated 21.04.2013. It may be mentioned that for filing settlement application under section 245C 1 of the Act, there was no requirement

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

234B of the Act. 8. That the interest under section 234A had been charged at Rs. 201623 stating that no return was filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act dated 21.04.2013. It may be mentioned that for filing settlement application under section 245C 1 of the Act, there was no requirement

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)

234B and 234D of the Act. Re: Ground of Appeal No.7:Penalty u/s 271AAC and 270A 88. The assessing officer grossly erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty under sections 271AAC and 270A of the Act.” 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue argued the matter and filed the written submissions which are reproduced

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act, but tells a story which is evident that spare funds of the family are being parked in this trust and it carries interest @18% per annum. The provisions of section 13(1)(c) speaks that provisions of section 11 and section 12 does not apply in case of the trust if any party

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

3. Against such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 08.06.2017 has allowed the appeal of the assessee and the additions made on both the issues were deleted and on account of interest charged u/s 234B, 234C and 234D, it was partly allowed. Against such the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

68,86,17,357/- while framing order u/s 144C(5) of the Act.\n11. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO, Ld. TPO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment on account of purchase of raw material of Rs. 3

PASWARA IMPEX LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MEERUT

The appeal is dismissed

sections": [ "68", "143(3)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the non-encashment of a cheque and reversal of the entry

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION vs. GE PACKAGED POWER INC

68 ITR 457) it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

68(del) - Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific Inc. vs DCIT (2016) 380 ITR 412 (del) - Rasalika Trading and Investemnt Co. Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT ( 2014) 365 ITR 447(Del) (ii) that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind while adopting rate of US dollar for computing interest liability and therefore, reasons need to be rejected on the ground

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

3), which was in totally arbitrary manner & without due application of mind, without making proper enquiry/investigation, in so far impugned additions are concerned, was wholly without jurisdiction, erroneous, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and equity as well as the well settled laws of the land, thus whole assessment was bad in law and in procedure

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

234B and 234C of the Act. 52. Ground of appeal no.1 is stated to be general in nature, not requiring any specific adjudication and is therefore, dismissed. 53. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2 to 2.5 are identical to grounds of appeal nos. 3 to 3.5 in respect of appeal for AY 2013-14 dealt with above in the earlier paras

PARAM DAIRY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 14, NEW DELHI

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

234B and 234C of the Act. 52. Ground of appeal no.1 is stated to be general in nature, not requiring any specific adjudication and is therefore, dismissed. 53. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 2 to 2.5 are identical to grounds of appeal nos. 3 to 3.5 in respect of appeal for AY 2013-14 dealt with above in the earlier paras

DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TEPE CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further penalty u/s 271(1) (c) has been imposed and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C has been charged. The appellant is disputing the said action of the Income Tax Officer. PLEA During the accounting period relevant for the year under appeal the appellant received share application money

PRADEEP TYAGI HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1),FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy[Assessment Year 2017-18]

234B of the Ineome Tax Act. 1961. 4 That the appellant erases the leave to add. modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is assailing the addition of Rs.1 crore towards cash deposited