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. 6. A similar view was taken by him in respect of the applicability of Section 269T of the Act and the penalty imposed under Section 271E

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. 6. A similar view was taken by him in respect of the applicability of Section 269T of the Act and the penalty imposed under Section 271E

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

68,372 4. 2009-10 1,02,72,274 5. 2009-10 3,39,90,000 5. Against order by Ld. AO passed under section 271C of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed penalty levied. 6. Aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now for all above assessment

SH. P.C. MINDA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

68 of Income Tax Act is not covered in this case. The assessee agreed that only section 269 T is partly covered in this case as the near relation Mr. Harish Bindal demanded cash and he has accepted the receipt of cash against their loan account. Section 269T was introduced with a view to counter the evasion

SH. DEEPAK MINDA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Deepak Minda, Vs Additional Cit, A-67/2, G.T. Karnal Road, Range 20, Delhi-110052 New Delhi. (Pan: Aadpm6422B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri P. Dankanunjna, Sr. Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.03.2016

68 of Income Tax Act is not covered in this case. The assessee agreed that only section 269 T is partly covered in this case as the near relation Mr. Harish Bindal demanded cash and he has accepted the receipt of cash against their loan account. Section 269T was introduced with a view to counter the evasion

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing

M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JAY BHARAT MARUTI LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Circle-4(1), 601, Hemkunt Chamber, New Delhi 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.113/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.908/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2005-06 & C.O. No.114/Del/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.909/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, 601, Hemkunt Chamber, Circle-4(1), 89-Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd., Vs. Acit, Neel House, Lado Sarai, Circle-4(1), Opp. Qutab Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacj2021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

273B of the Act. Even, otherwise also, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been imposed alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, facts on record reveal that all material facts relating to investments in shares and mutual funds as well as capital gain/loss derived therefrom have been furnished by the assessee before the Assessing

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

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 of the I.T. Act in a sum of Rs.15,80,000 which is sum equal to the amount of cash loan so taken or accepted. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) considering

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 of the I.T. Act in a sum of Rs.15,80,000 which is sum equal to the amount of cash loan so taken or accepted. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) considering

AMBIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, RANGE-73, , NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ambience Private Limited, Vs Ito, L4, Green Park Extension, Range-73, New Delhi – 110 016. New Delhi.

68,000/- and Rs. 1,08,920/- respectively, totaling to Rs. 1,76,920/-. Sir, as regard to the deduction of TDS on sitting fees of the Directors as concerned, the assessee was under the bonafide belief that no TDS is required to be deducted on such payments. The view of the assessee also finds force that the amendment

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

273B of the IT Act, 1961 no penalty shall be levied if the failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS or 269T is due to some reasonable cause. Now the question arises as to what can be a reasonable cause to justify the violation of the provision of section 269SS and 269T? Some of the reasonable

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

273B of the IT Act, 1961 no penalty shall be levied if the failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS or 269T is due to some reasonable cause. Now the question arises as to what can be a reasonable cause to justify the violation of the provision of section 269SS and 269T? Some of the reasonable

M/S. GLOBAL REALTY HERITAGE VENTURE (COCHIN) (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

section 269SS. Accordingly penalty u/s 271D was imposed relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2005) 275 ITR 399. The Page 2 of 9 I.T.A .No.-855 to 857 & 785 to 786/Del/2014 explanation offered by the assessee in the penalty proceedings was not accepted

M/S. GAGAN BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

section 269SS. Accordingly penalty u/s 271D was imposed relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2005) 275 ITR 399. The Page 2 of 9 I.T.A .No.-855 to 857 & 785 to 786/Del/2014 explanation offered by the assessee in the penalty proceedings was not accepted