SOLTERRA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member

ITA No. 6958/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2024-25 Solterra Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 12/74, Site-IV, Sahibabad, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad-201010 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABICS8402N Assessee by: Sh. N. K. Chand, Adv. & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 15.05.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.08.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2024-25.

2 ITA No. 6958/Del/2025 Solterra Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 3. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in the facts, the law, and the circumstances of the case by upholding the order of the CPC, ignoring the facts of the case and denied the benefit of reduced rate of tax u/s 115BAB as per the provisions of the Act, i.e., 15% (plus applicable surcharge and cess). 4. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in the facts, the law, and the circumstances of the case by upholding the order of the CPC, only the basis, that the Appellant had not debited any direct expenditure to the manufacturing account, the CIT(A) considered that there is no manufacturing activity in the business of the Appellant. He totally ignored the amount of direct expenses debited to the profit and loss account and also the amount of investment made by the Appellant in the fixed assets to install the plant for the purpose of the manufacturing during the year under consideration. 5. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in the facts, the law, and the circumstances of the case by upholding the order of the CPC, in interpreting the provision and conditions as described in section 115BAB(2) of the Act. 6. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in the facts, the law, and the circumstances of the case by upholding the order of the CPC and denying the benefit of reduced rate applicable u/s 115BAB on the facts of the case that before commencement of the operation the Appellant was involved in the trading of the products which it had planned to manufacture. Ignoring the fact that the trading was done only to understand the market of the product only on test basis so that after starting manufacturing, it should not face any problem In the selling the product manufactured in its unit. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds of the appeal, the Appellant pray before the Hon’ble Tribunal to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to claim the reduced rate of tax @ 22% with a surcharge and education cess u/s 115BAA of the Act by following the procedure as needed under the provisions of the Act, in case, it is decided that the Appellant is not eligible for beneficial rate as provided u/s 115BAB of the Act from the AY under discussion and the succeeding years. 8. That the Ld. AO has further erred in calculating and levying interest u/s 234A, u/s 234B, and u/s 234C of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the instant case. 9. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant.” 3. At the outset, ld. AR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing any

3 ITA No. 6958/Del/2025 Solterra Technologies Pvt. Ltd. opportunity of being heard. He has therefore requested for restoring back the matter to ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee due opportunity of being heard. Ld. DR has not objected to the above proposition.