M/S. OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

68,000/- on account of deduction under section 36(1)(xii) of the Act but sustained the disallowance of Rs.5,23,00,000/- under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year 2006-07 the Assessing Officer also made disallowance of Rs.5,50,00,000/-under section 35(1) of the Act. In assessment year

AJAY PAL SINGH,NOIDA GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) NOIDA GBN, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period of one month from the end of the month in which the application under sub-section

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 276C.” While imposition penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.J Act, 1961, it is of utmost importance to take into cognizance the objective of penalty provision. The price objective of 4 I.T.A.No.9233/Del/2019 penalty provision is to have deterrent effect, to make assessee law abiding and to enforce fiscal discipline amongst the asses see. An assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE- 15,, NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN LAL MADHOK, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

68,000/– was segregated for two A.Ys i.e 2006–07 and 2007–08. This revised computation of income along with the submissions is placed at pages 127 to 131 of the paper-book. 15. The Assessing Officer completely disregarded the facts mentioned hereinabove and made addition of Rs.2,05,50,545/– as unexplained investment under section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 15,, NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN LAL MADHOK, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

68,000/– was segregated for two A.Ys i.e 2006–07 and 2007–08. This revised computation of income along with the submissions is placed at pages 127 to 131 of the paper-book. 15. The Assessing Officer completely disregarded the facts mentioned hereinabove and made addition of Rs.2,05,50,545/– as unexplained investment under section

KRISHAN LAL MADHOK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 15,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

68,000/– was segregated for two A.Ys i.e 2006–07 and 2007–08. This revised computation of income along with the submissions is placed at pages 127 to 131 of the paper-book. 15. The Assessing Officer completely disregarded the facts mentioned hereinabove and made addition of Rs.2,05,50,545/– as unexplained investment under section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN LAL MADHOK, DELHI

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

68,000/– was segregated for two A.Ys i.e 2006–07 and 2007–08. This revised computation of income along with the submissions is placed at pages 127 to 131 of the paper-book. 15. The Assessing Officer completely disregarded the facts mentioned hereinabove and made addition of Rs.2,05,50,545/– as unexplained investment under section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 15,, NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN LAL MADHOK, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

68,000/– was segregated for two A.Ys i.e 2006–07 and 2007–08. This revised computation of income along with the submissions is placed at pages 127 to 131 of the paper-book. 15. The Assessing Officer completely disregarded the facts mentioned hereinabove and made addition of Rs.2,05,50,545/– as unexplained investment under section

KRISHAN LAL MADHOK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 15,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

68,000/– was segregated for two A.Ys i.e 2006–07 and 2007–08. This revised computation of income along with the submissions is placed at pages 127 to 131 of the paper-book. 15. The Assessing Officer completely disregarded the facts mentioned hereinabove and made addition of Rs.2,05,50,545/– as unexplained investment under section

ACIT, CIRCLE- 15,, NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN LAL MADHOK, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals by the revenue are accordingly

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

68,000/– was segregated for two A.Ys i.e 2006–07 and 2007–08. This revised computation of income along with the submissions is placed at pages 127 to 131 of the paper-book. 15. The Assessing Officer completely disregarded the facts mentioned hereinabove and made addition of Rs.2,05,50,545/– as unexplained investment under section

AMAR NATH,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

68,512/- on 27.01.2020 which was within the specified period as mentioned in the notice of demand issued u/s 156 of the Act. Relying provisions of Section 270AA of the Act he submitted that as the demand was settled within the specified period and no appeal against the assessment order was filed the conditions stood complied so assessee

GAURAV GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 of the Act. The CIT (Appeal), Ghaziabad vide his order Appeal No. 585/2013- 14/GZB dated 16.10.2014 upheld the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- and deleted the addition of Rs. 11,87,129/-. The Assessing Officer levied penalty proceedings on the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- upheld by the CIT(A). In the penalty order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -IV NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD

In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

68,845/-. 6. In the penalty proceeding, the assessee had filed its show cause contending, inter alia, that in its opinion the amounts that were disallowed did qualify for deduction under Sections 80-1A and 80-IB of the Act but the said explanation of the assessee was rejected and penalty was levied. 7. Before

SHARSH FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2005-06 M/S Sharsh Finance & Acit, Circle 18(1), Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi 16L, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aahcs1410L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

276C and penalty under section 271(1)(c) had to be kept in mind and approach adopted to the trial of a criminal case need not be adopted while considering the levy of penalty. Even so, concept of penalty has not undergone change by virtue of the said judgment. Penalty is imposed only when there is some element

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

68 (Delhi) (MAG.)/[2012] 253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

68,480/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the tax due on the returned income was not paid by the assessee and hence in terms of section 249(4) of the Act, the appeal would not be maintainable. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before