DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

5A below the section 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted in the case of the assessee being a deeming provision and thus assessee cannot escape from the liability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of the contention, the Ld. DR relied upon following decisions: 1. Saniav Aqqarwal Vs CIT f20in

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

5A below the section 271(1)(c) of the Act is attracted in the case of the assessee being a deeming provision and thus assessee cannot escape from the liability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of the contention, the Ld. DR relied upon following decisions: 1. Saniav Aqqarwal Vs CIT f20in

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act either in the assessment order or in any of the notices issued prior to passing of the penalty order. He argued that no specific charge / default for which the penalty was initiated, was never clearly stated in either the notice or in the assessment order. His main argument revolved around

SANJEEV J AIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act either in the assessment order or in any of the notices issued prior to passing of the penalty order. He argued that no specific charge / default for which the penalty was initiated, was never clearly stated in either the notice or in the assessment order. His main argument revolved around

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act either in the assessment order or in any of the notices issued prior to passing of the penalty order. He argued that no specific charge / default for which the penalty was initiated, was never clearly stated in either the notice or in the assessment order. His main argument revolved around

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act either in the assessment order or in any of the notices issued prior to passing of the penalty order. He argued that no specific charge / default for which the penalty was initiated, was never clearly stated in either the notice or in the assessment order. His main argument revolved around

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act either in the assessment order or in any of the notices issued prior to passing of the penalty order. He argued that no specific charge / default for which the penalty was initiated, was never clearly stated in either the notice or in the assessment order. His main argument revolved around

SANJEEV JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act either in the assessment order or in any of the notices issued prior to passing of the penalty order. He argued that no specific charge / default for which the penalty was initiated, was never clearly stated in either the notice or in the assessment order. His main argument revolved around

RISHABH BUILDWELL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act either in the assessment order or in any of the notices issued prior to passing of the penalty order. He argued that no specific charge / default for which the penalty was initiated, was never clearly stated in either the notice or in the assessment order. His main argument revolved around

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. INDIA HIV AIDS ALLIANCE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

68, 75 to 89, 93 to 100 & 105 to 110 3. Statement of Priyanka Razdan before I/Tax Deptt 135, 137 to 139, 141 to 150, 155, 156, 166, Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:02.05.2022 16:00:05 Signature Not Verified W.P. (CRL.) 72/2022 & W.P. (CRL.) 73/2022 Page 15 of 49 167, 170 to 172 9. Statement of Sanjeev

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. INDIA HIV AIDS ALLIANCE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

68, 75 to 89, 93 to 100 & 105 to 110 3. Statement of Priyanka Razdan before I/Tax Deptt 135, 137 to 139, 141 to 150, 155, 156, 166, Digitally Signed By:DURGESH NANDAN Signing Date:02.05.2022 16:00:05 Signature Not Verified W.P. (CRL.) 72/2022 & W.P. (CRL.) 73/2022 Page 15 of 49 167, 170 to 172 9. Statement of Sanjeev

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28 , NEW DELHI vs. AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD., DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under

AGSON GLOBAL PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CC-28, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 of the Act. 5a That section 2451 of the Act makes the order of the Settlement Commission under