SMT. LEKSHMI VISHWANATH,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for violation of Section 269SS separately. The A.O. vide separate order levied penalty under section 271D

ITO, WAR- 64(5), NEW DELHI vs. LEKSHMI VISHWANATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. initiated penalty proceedings for violation of Section 269SS separately. The A.O. vide separate order levied penalty under section 271D

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WASHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

271D as the transaction are through banking channels only held in Asst. CIT v. Jag Vijay Auto Finance (p) Ltd.[2000] 68 TTJ (Jp) 44 Loan in cash under compelling circumstances have been held to be reasonable cause: Industrial Enterprises v. DCIT[2000] 68 TTJ (Hyd) 373. 6.6 Where the Lenders did not have any bank account which compelled

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SATVINDER SINGH WADHAWAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal No

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

271D as the transaction are through banking channels only held in Asst. CIT v. Jag Vijay Auto Finance (p) Ltd.[2000] 68 TTJ (Jp) 44 Loan in cash under compelling circumstances have been held to be reasonable cause: Industrial Enterprises v. DCIT[2000] 68 TTJ (Hyd) 373. 6.6 Where the Lenders did not have any bank account which compelled

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 68 are applicable in case where the credit was received by the assessee. However, in the present case, the position is entirely different, as the amount of Rs. 58 lacs was not received by the assessee rather the amount was paid by the assessee to his wife out of his explained sources. Hence, the addition in dispute made

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 68 are applicable in case where the credit was received by the assessee. However, in the present case, the position is entirely different, as the amount of Rs. 58 lacs was not received by the assessee rather the amount was paid by the assessee to his wife out of his explained sources. Hence, the addition in dispute made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. RUHIL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

section 68 having been upheld, this penalty cannot be imposed as the basic classification is altered. This appeal is allowed and the penalty is directed to be deleted.” 10. Aggrieved the revenue filed appeal before us. It was argued that the proceedings u/s 68 and the proceedings u/s 271D

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

68 of the Act in the assessment against which an appeal was pending. In this view of the matter, he held that the assessee was liable to penalty under Section 271D

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO LTD

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

68 of the Act in the assessment against which an appeal was pending. In this view of the matter, he held that the assessee was liable to penalty under Section 271D

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD

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

68 to the extent of 35% and were also subjected to an equivalent amount of penalty was not accepted on the ground that the addition was the subject matter of appeal in different proceedings. 5. For the above reasons the Additional CIT held that the assessee, without reasonable cause, committed a violation of Section 269SS

CIT vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD

68 to the extent of 35% and were also subjected to an equivalent amount of penalty was not accepted on the ground that the addition was the subject matter of appeal in different proceedings. 5. For the above reasons the Additional CIT held that the assessee, without reasonable cause, committed a violation of Section 269SS

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. DEEPAK KUMAR, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Gurugram, Deepak Kumar, Haryana 122016 H.No. 13/2, Dlf Phase-1, Lower Vs. Ground Floor, Gurugram, Haryana Pan Aaapk 4112 D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri T. James Singson, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 11.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-34, New Delhi Dated 27.06.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(4) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Us 271D Of The Act Relying On The Order Of The Hon 'Ble

section 271D of the Act, as held by the Tribunal." [6] 22. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of R.P. Singh & Co. [P] Ltd 340 ITR 217 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had the occasion to decide on the fact that once the share application money is treated

BALWAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Sections 271D and 271E of the Act before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 4. When the matter was called for hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that assessee

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SHANTI SWAROOP BATRA, DELHI

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

68 of the Act, the same cannot be subject t provision of section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, penalty under section 271D

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SHRI SIDHDATA ISPAT (P) LTD.

68. Otherwise also the identity of the parties has been established beyond doubt and even their sources explained. The amount has been received towards share application money. Therefore no addition can be made in the hands of the appellant company. The AO may pass on the information about quantum of investment to the concerned AOs having jurisdiction over the investors

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

68 of the Act. The CIT(A) called for a remand report on the submissions made by the Assessee. The AO submitted the remand report, inter alia, enclosing a satisfaction note recorded by the AO, which reads as under:- “A search operation u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of SVP Group