SAINI CO OPERATIVE THARIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,DELHI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 834/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 836/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Saini Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Vs Cit(A)-16, Society Ltd., 2420-2421, Bazar New Delhi-110002 Kamra Bangash, A. G. C. R. Central Delhi, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabas8396K Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeal In Ita No. 834/Del/2024 For Assessment Years 2011-12, Arise Against The Cit(A)-16, New Delhi’S Order Dated 06.08.2019 Passed In Case No. 10333/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 & It’S Latter Appeal Ita No. 836/Del/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059607361(1) Dated 11.01.2024, In Proceedings U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. The assessee’s former appeal ITA No. 834/Del/2024 for A.Y. 2011-12 raises it’s sole substantive grievance on merits 2 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd. that both the learned lower authorities have erred

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KULDEEP TEXTILES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were also remained non-complied. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has given details of the notices sent along with the remark of non-compliance. In view of non-compliance, the Assessing Officer made addition for unexplained cash deposited in bank, unexplained advances to Akariti International Inc. and unexplained

RAJIV JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs.10,17,650/-, is justified in the circumstances of the case?” 3. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the appellant-assessee as an individual engaged in commission agency business with a life insurance company, had filed return declaring income of Rs.5,84,146/-. 4. The return

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. BAKER HUGHES ASIA PACIFIC LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeals of the department as well as Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 6584/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Ltd., C/O-Nangia & Co., Cas, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1, Ncr Plaza, New Cantt. Road, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb3714F Co No. 216/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O-Nangia & Co., Cas, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (International Ncr Plaza, New Cantt. Road, Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb3714F

68,866 21,848,550 - 272,063 331,368,558 RECEIPTS AS PER CO/ ITA Nos. 6584 & 6588/Del/2014 12 CO No. 216/Del/2015 Baker Hughes Asia & Singapore Ltd. 5. The AO, however, by following the order for the assessment year 2008-09 worked out the taxable income at Rs.8,28,42,140/- by observing as under: “In response to the query

MOHD AKRAM,MORADABAD UP vs. ITO -1(1),, MORADABAD UP

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.4394/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 Mohd Akram Vs. Ito Ghosiyo Wali Puliya, Ward – 1(1) Nawabpura, Moradabad Moradabad-244001 Pan- Aczpa 0304 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- Moradabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee Is An Individual Who Electronically Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,25,280/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Also Issued On Various Dates. The Ao Has Noted That Assessee Did Not File Any Reply. He Therefore, Proceed To Frame The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act Vide Order Dated 08.12.2017 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.12,26,760/-.

68,489/- belong to the partnership firm in which the assesse is a partner. This was through an online communication where further evidences could not be furnished due to technical difficulties. The learned CIT(A) ought to have heard the assessee’s explanation in support of his claims. However, no hearing was fixed after the date of communication

PRABHAT KUMAR RASTOGI ,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD- 1(2)(1), MEERUT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Prabhat Kumar Rastogi Vs. Income Tax Officer 76,Holi Mohalla, Near Ward1(2) (1) Meerut Saraffa, Bazar Meerut City Uttar Pradesh250002 Pan No. Acfpr6257D (Appellant) (Respondent)

271B. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 3,19,040/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for scrutiny to verify abnormal increase in cash deposit during the demonization period as compared to pre- demonization period. During

AMIT SABHARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD

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

section 44AB and since there is no limitation for initiation of penalty u/s 271B and such penalty need not be initiated during the course of any assessment proceedings only, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

BABITA KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

271B of IT Act may not be imposed upon you.” 3.1. He has submitted that prior to that assessing officer issued show cause notice on 25th February, 2015 for compliance on 14th March, 2016. However, by that time no assessment order under section 153A was passed. Therefore, the show cause notices issued are illegal and bad in law, particularly

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

271B of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal and add any other ground of appeal.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 2, the grievance of the department relates to the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to treat the surplus amount of Rs.81