COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3 vs. FIVE VISION PROMOTERS PVT.LTD

The appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances, with no orders as

271F stating that it had already filed a return for AY 2009-10 on 29th September 2009. It enclosed to the reply a hard copy of the said return. Thereafter, notices were again sent to the Assessee by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) on 15th September 2010 under Section 143 (2) of the Act. The jurisdiction of the case

RNB INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI

26. In view of the above discussion and findings, appeal- ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narinder Kumarm/S Rnb International Private Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-32, Delhi Limited, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi- 110027 Pan :..Aaccr7687L (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita/845/Del/2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Rnb International Pvt. Limited, Tax, Rnb House, 142A/2, Noida, Sez, Central Circle-32, New Delhi Noida- Dadri Road, U.P. 201305 (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F of the Act. Thereupon, vide letter dated 20.12.2019, AR of the assessee submitted certain details before the Assessing Officer. Ultimately the Assessing Officer proceeded to finalize the assessment on merits. 10. It may be mentioned here that vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and the detailed questionnaire dated 23.10.2019, the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI vs. RNB INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

26. In view of the above discussion and findings, appeal- ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narinder Kumarm/S Rnb International Private Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-32, Delhi Limited, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. Mother Dairy, Delhi- 110027 Pan :..Aaccr7687L (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita/845/Del/2022 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Rnb International Pvt. Limited, Tax, Rnb House, 142A/2, Noida, Sez, Central Circle-32, New Delhi Noida- Dadri Road, U.P. 201305 (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F of the Act. Thereupon, vide letter dated 20.12.2019, AR of the assessee submitted certain details before the Assessing Officer. Ultimately the Assessing Officer proceeded to finalize the assessment on merits. 10. It may be mentioned here that vide notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and the detailed questionnaire dated 23.10.2019, the Assessing Officer had asked the assessee

RITESH KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Assessment Year 2013-14 Assessment Year 2014-15 Assessment Year 2016-17 Assessment Year 2017-18 Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-195, Opp. Mother Dairy Income Tax, Central Circle Booth, Nirmal Vihar, 5, New Delhi Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092 Pan No. Actpg0839J (Appellant) (Respondent)

271F of the Act dated 31.07.2018. The assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2018 declaring income of Rs.12,30,589/-. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act for the year issued on 09.10.2018 and 27.11.2018. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.12.2018. Show-cause-notice was issued on 09.12.2018. On completion

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIVIC CENTRE, NEAR MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act.” 6. At the time of hearing

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

271F and prosecution/s 276CC of the Act. iv. In the case of a best judgment assessment, as per the provision of section 142(3), there is no requirement of any opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of the material gathered by the Assessing Officer. v. As per section 184 of the Act, if the assessment

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

271F and prosecution/s 276CC of the Act. iv. In the case of a best judgment assessment, as per the provision of section 142(3), there is no requirement of any opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of the material gathered by the Assessing Officer. v. As per section 184 of the Act, if the assessment

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

271F and prosecution/s 276CC of the Act. iv. In the case of a best judgment assessment, as per the provision of section 142(3), there is no requirement of any opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of the material gathered by the Assessing Officer. v. As per section 184 of the Act, if the assessment

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

271F and prosecution/s 276CC of the Act. iv. In the case of a best judgment assessment, as per the provision of section 142(3), there is no requirement of any opportunity of being heard to the assessee in respect of the material gathered by the Assessing Officer. v. As per section 184 of the Act, if the assessment

AVNISH KUMAR SURAJ KUMAR JAIN ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-36(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, Vs Ito, C-6/1., Rana Pratap Bagh, Ward-36(5), New Delhi-110007. New Delhi. Pan-Aekpj2063C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

68 is accordingly made to the taxable income of the assessee. Further, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income to this extent, hence, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 is being initiated separately. (Addition of Rs. 25,89,000/-) 5. Again since the assessee has not submitted her ITR under

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.\n\n10.\nThat in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the\nLd. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of\nthe Act.\"\n\n6.\nAt the time of hearing

TRANS WORLD INTERNATIONAL LLC,DELAWARE, USA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271F of the Act and section 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act for the subject year as the same is bad in law.\n\n10.\nThat in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the\nLd. AO erred in levying interest under section 234A and 234B of\nthe Act.\n\nAt the time of hearing

LALIT KUMAR,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4) GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

sections 271(1)(c), 271F, and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable, as the assessment itself is vitiated by procedural lapses and the absence of willful default or concealment. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts

RAJESH AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1) of the Act and show cause notice. 9.1 During appellate proceedings, it was pleaded that due to lockdown, the appellant's premises were locked and electricity was also disconnected and due to water seepage the documents got spoiled. Appellant has not produced any evidences in support of his contention that his books and documents got spoiled

RAJESH AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1) of the Act and show cause notice. 9.1 During appellate proceedings, it was pleaded that due to lockdown, the appellant's premises were locked and electricity was also disconnected and due to water seepage the documents got spoiled. Appellant has not produced any evidences in support of his contention that his books and documents got spoiled

QAMAR AFZAL TALAT,DUBAI vs. ITO WARD 28(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

68,010 in strangulation of particulars of principle of natural justice and ignoring relevant material available on record. 2. That the Ld. Assessing officer erred in calculating the capital gain on sale which was never made. 3. That Ld. Assessing officer calculated the capital gain on sale of property considering only credits appearing in bank statement and fails to take

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. PSK FINANCE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

271F of the Act are initiated for late filing of return of income. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 27.09.2017 and duly served upon the assessee. 2. The CCIT(Central) accorded administrative approval for centralization 14 cases of the group with the Central Circle-28, New Delhi. The case was centralized with this Circle vide order

M/S. SORUS POWER PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 07 appeals of different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2013-14

section 234B and initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© are further wrong as against the law and to the facts of the case and a such same my please be deleted because of being consequential to the illegal addition made and relief claimed there from. 10. That the appellant company assails their right to amend, alter, change any ground