GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

275(1)(a) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty by way of issue of penalty notice under Section 274 of the Act without specifying whether the penalty is initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000 3. Interest from others 11,79,09,000 4. Liquidated Damages 76,71,90,000 5. Excess provision written back 1686,63,72,000 6. Others including sale of directories, 142,90,32,000 publications, forms, waste paper, etc. 6.2. Not convinced with the explanation offered the additions were made in the computation of income made under

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000 3. Interest from others 11,79,09,000 4. Liquidated Damages 76,71,90,000 5. Excess provision written back 1686,63,72,000 6. Others including sale of directories, 142,90,32,000 publications, forms, waste paper, etc. 6.2. Not convinced with the explanation offered the additions were made in the computation of income made under

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

68,077/- on account of Interest from Savings Bank account and FDR. The assessee had also claimed exemption of Rs. 19,24,70,893/- u/s. 10 of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was declared at Rs. 35,29,470/- (rounded off u/s. 288A) in the return of income. 4.2 On perusal of the ITS details, it was observed that

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

section 271(1)(c) i.e concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars. No doubt, penalty Jet Lite (India) Ltd proceedings are separate proceedings where appellant has full right to produce evidences to show that the conclusion of facts (as well as law) reached during assessment proceedings were not correct. However, the appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

275]. The Court clarified that if an award is contrary to the substantive provisions of law of India, in effect, it is in contravention of Section 28(1)(a) of the 1996 Act. Similarly, violating terms of the contract, in effect, is in contravention of Section 28(3) of the 1996 Act. 68. In Ssangyong Engg. & Construction

M/S. NARSI IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub- section (1). (4) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

275 (SC), S. Narayanappa v. CIT(1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC), Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Asstt. CIT[1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das[1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC). The Court has also discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (supra). It must be noted at this stage that

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

275 ITR 595 in the following manner: - “A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding