ACIT CC-14, DELHI vs. DELHI SPOT BULLION TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

6)=5/(1+4) (7) (8)=5*100/ *100 7 2015-16 6445450 7370159 9247089 2016-17 1123000 1507290 4558750 21250000 2433750 18.22 21060615 11.56 00 28 0 0 1 The cash deposited by the appellant after demonetization is just 18.22% of the cash deposited before demonetization. The appellant had made cash sales even after demonetization and deposited huge cash

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

section 271(1)(c) 6. CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi (2012) 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68

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

section 271(1)(c) 6. CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi (2012) 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68

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

section 271(1)(c) 6. CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi (2012) 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] 212 Taxman 68

OM GANPATI MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

68 r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act and enhanced the taxable income towards aforesaid cash deposits. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) however was also not convinced by the explanation offered towards source of cash deposits by the assessee. The CIT(A) thus declined to interfere with the order

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty, without appreciating that the Hon’ble High Court having admitted the appeal of the Appellant for the same AY on a substantial question of law qua existence of a permanent establishment, the issue was prima facie debatable

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

1) of Section 144B; b) addition under section 68 of the Act has been made without even giving an opportunity by issuing a show cause notice and ; (c) no personal hearing was granted despite petitioner requesting for the same. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the said assessment order passed in violation of section 144B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

68 of the Income Tax Act for unproved cash credit. 5. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. After completion of assessment the penalty orders were made. The assessees appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals of Meeri Devi were dismissed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

68 of the Income Tax Act for unproved cash credit. 5. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. After completion of assessment the penalty orders were made. The assessees appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals of Meeri Devi were dismissed

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

6) calling for information but there was no compliance. He, therefore, added both the corpus donations under Section 68. The assessing officer also disallowed depreciation on certain assets on the ground that the cost of those assets was allowed as application of the income of the trust for charitable purposes and allowance of depreciation of those assets would amount

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

6 Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs. Pr.CIT, Central-3 activities are not being carried out in terms of its aims and objects including diversion of income derived from property held under society (Para 2.2, Pg 3) • In view of above, AO made a reference for cancellation/withdrawal of registration of society u/s 12A 1 was 12AA and 12AB(4) (Para

MOHD UMEED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

section 69A is without any basis and needs to be deleted. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to appreciate the fact that it was due to government's demonetization policy that the assessee had to deposit the entire cash lying with it in denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes