Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

Q: How many judgments cite Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. (443 ITR 186), spanning 2023 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 270A, Section 143(3), Section 270AA, Section 270A(8), Section 270A(9), Section 274.

443 ITR 186High Court2022#4055 most cited

What is Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. authority for?

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. · Section 270A · Section 270A(9) · Section 270A(8) · mis-reporting of income · under-reporting of income · penalty proceedings · show cause notice · AO failure · invalid proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 270A Section 143(3)Section 270AA Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 274 Section 133A Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)section 270a(2)(a)section 270a(9)(a)section 270a(9)section 270a(2)section 270a(1)section 115jc immunity under section 270aa section 270aa mis-reporting of income section 270a(6)(a)under-reporting of income

Judgments citing Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1882/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarashok Kumar Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Cc-8, New Delhi C/O Anil Jain, Dd & Co., 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kg Marg, New Delhi – 1 [Pan: Aaapg2240G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Agtpg1303M

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

…ces committed by the assessee, would become fatal to the penalty proceedings per se. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric Sought East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 443 ITR 186(Del) wherein, it was held as under:- “6. Having perused the impugned order dated March 9, 2022, this court is of the view that the respondents' action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any…

M/S Eklavya Estate Pvt.Ltd., Ranchi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 270ASection 274

…to under which limb of provisions of section 2704(2) or 2704(9), the assessee has misreported or under-reported it's income. [Para 7.1] It is found the Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. ACIT reported in (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) has held that when there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. the action of the Assessing Officer is contrary to the legislative intent. [Para 7.3] The various other decisions relied on by the assessee also supports his case to the proposi…

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1260/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Capgemini Technology Services India Assistant Commissioner Limited [as successor-in-interest of of Income Tax, erstwhile Aricent Technologies Vs. Circle – 1(1), Pune (Holdings) Limited-since amalgamated, Plot No. 14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase III, MIDC SEZ, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, Dist. Pune-411057 PAN : AACCK8280B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत…

Sangam Almirah Private Limited, Muzaffarpur vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 338/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…fically mentioned either in the penalty order or in the assessment order. The Ld. AR relied upon the order of the coordinate Bench and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reported as Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. v. ACIT(IT) (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del), which was not examined by the Ld. CIT(A). As regards the merits of the case, as the assessee had accepted the income, which related to earlier year, it was not a case of misreporting. The Ld. DR, on the other hand stated that it was a case of misreporting and relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissi…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Nanded, Nanded vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Osmanabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2109/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B. P. JajuFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 133ASection 2Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 9

…venue’s instant technical arguments to conclude in light of section 270A (8) & (9) r.w. clauses (a to f) that the learned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan S.A. Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.15,54,736/- stands deleted in very terms.” 10. From the perusal of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) we find that Ld. CIT(A) has simply f…

Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1779/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh G., A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274

…331/- in his penalty order but levied 200% penalty. 5.4 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 186, we are of the considered view that failure on the part of the AO to show cause which of the specific action of the assessee company from clause (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) was determinant before imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rendered the proceedings invalid and thus untenable in the eyes of law. 5.5 Therefore, it goes without sayin…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore vs. L Javerchand Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1542/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 274

…verchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Page 15 of 17 10.6 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble High court of Delhi in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors. (2022) 443 ITR 186, we are of the considered view that failure on the part of the AO to show cause which of the specific action of the assessee company from clause (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) was determinant before imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rendered the proceedings invalid and thus untenable in the eyes of law. 10.7 Therefore, it goes without sayi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakrahar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

…Labs Ltd.v. DCIT [(2024) 38 NYPTTJ 706 (Mum)]. 8. Smita Ashok Thakur v. DCIT [ITA No. 4386/Mum/2023] dated 07.10.2024. 9. G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. v. ACIT [(2024) 336 CTR 249 (Raj H.C.)]. 10. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. ACIT [(2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) (HC)]. 11. Kishor D. Patil v. ITO [ITA Nos.54 & 55/PUNE/2023] dated 30.03.2023. 12. PCIT v. Jehangir H. C. Jehangir [(2023) 155 taxmann.com 209 (Bom HC)]. 13. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT [434 ITR 1 (Bom)(HC)]. 6.1. He submitted that although the assessee has raised a ground before the Ld. CIT(A) that when profit is estimated, penalt…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers Private Limited, Jalgaon

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

Santosh Kumar Khandelwal, Baripada vs. ACIT, Balasore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.449/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष"

Section 144Section 270(9)(c)Section 270ASection 274Section 9

…in the eyes of law. Consequently the penalty imposed u/s 270A of the Act being bad in law deserves to be quashed, ergo we order accordingly. 9 10. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. Vs. ACIT(IT), (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Delhi-HC) has also dealt with the issue of satisfaction before issue of notice u/s. 270A wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under: 6. Having perused the impugned order dated 09 March, 2022 this Court is of the view that the Respondents’ action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270…

Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals are allowed

ITA 685/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal Vs. Ito, Nashik 1, Vraj Vihar, Vidhate Nagar, S.No.15-10-2011, Cts No.2421, Fame Theatre, Nsk Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 Pan: Aaxpg5950C Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Plot No.36, Nashik Vrundavan Bunglow, Deffodil Soc, Wadala-Pathardi Road, Opp. Guru Govind Singh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Achps8498R Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 9

…venue’s instant technical arguments to conclude in light of section 270A (8) & (9) r.w. clauses (a to f) that the learned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.98,324/- stands deleted in very terms.” 5. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute the fact that the AO’s corresponding sh…

Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeals are allowed

ITA 182/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 9

…venue’s instant technical arguments to conclude in light of section 270A (8) & (9) r.w. clauses (a to f) that the learned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section 271(1)(c) old penal provision. We order accordingly. The impugned penalty of Rs.98,324/- stands deleted in very terms.” 5. Learned departmental representative could hardly dispute the fact that the AO’s corresponding sh…

Dharmdas Sons Fruits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4265/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Girish Agrawal (AM) I.T.A. No. 4265/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Dharmdas Sons Fruits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Faceless 11/1, Mount Blanc Appeal Centre A.K. Marg, Kemps Corner Delhi Mumbai-400 037. (Respondent) PAN : AAACD5681R (Appellant) Assessee by Department by Date of Hearing Ms. Prajakta Arote Smt. Mahita Nair 01.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) :- This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, arises against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre “NFAC”, Delhi's D…

Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle Pune, P.M.T Building Swargate Pune vs. Kedari Redekar Shikshan Sanstha Gadhinglaj, Gadhinglaj

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 12ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 80G

…part indeed vitiates the entire penal proceedings (in old scheme), but also the very principle applies qua this new scheme of section 270A applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 for AY 2017-18 onwards as per Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Delhi). 11. We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the Ld. AR that a revision in computation of income was made with a view to correct bonafide mistake which did not have any tax implication so as to cause 7 ITA No.559/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 misrepresentation resulting in misreporting. Misrepresentation is often willful or intentional…

Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeal is allowed

ITA 98/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Abhilasha Sanjay PawarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.98/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi, Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 36, Vrundavan Bunglow, Nashik Deffodil Soc., Wadala-Pathardi Vs. Road, Opp. Guru Govind Singh College, Indira Nagar, Maharashtra – 422009 PAN : ACHPS8498R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 0…

Kasat Prakash M HUF, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1328/PUN/2023 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Kasat Prakash M (HUF), ITO, Ward – 1, MCL 40 1233, Shriniwas, Near Kore Nanded Garden Moti Nagar, Vs. Latur – 413512 PAN : AAHHK3252P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Girish Ladda Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 06-06-2024 Date of 19-06-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : Th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha vs. Odisha State Beverages Corporation Limited, Odisha

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 359/CTK/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2020-2021 2021 Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Dcit, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Vs. Odisha Odisha State State Beverages Beverages 2Nd Building, Building, Rajaswas Rajaswas Vihar, Vihar, Corporation Corporation Limited., Limited., 2 Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar. Floor, Floor, Fortune Fortune Towers, Towers, S.E.Rly S.E.Rly Proj. Proj. Complex, Complex, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajit Mishra, Ca Satyajit Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/0 06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/0 /06/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of 21.9.2023 Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 23.9.2022 By Disallowing A Sum Of 022 By Disallowing A Sum Of Rs.3,00,00,000/ Rs.3,00,00,000/- Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of Out Of Expenses Claimed By The Assessee On Account Of License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings License Fees U/S.40(A)(Iib) Of The Act. Simultaneously, Penalty Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 40

…ge 46 of paper book and subsequent notice dated 1.11.2022 available at pages 47 & 48 of paper book. In support of this arguments, ld AR placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd, 443 ITR 186 (Del). He further submitted that the assessee company has paid license fees to the Government, which is in terms of Odisha Excise Act, according to which, license fee is received from liquor business in the state of Odisha. Since the assessee company is engaged in buying and selling liquor in the State of Odisha, it has to pay license fees to obt…

Mahavir Realties, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 135/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)

…nal proceedings [in old scheme], but also the very principle applies qua this new scheme of sec.270A applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2017 for assessment year 2017-2018 onwards as 3 ITA.No.135/PUN./2024 per Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Ltd., vs. ACIT [2022] 443 ITR 186 (Delhi). We thus accept the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance in very terms to conclude that the learned lower authorities have not specified the corresponding limb in their respective orders. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.04.2024. [RAMA KANTA PAND…

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

…ng Officer has imposed penalty not within the time prescribed under section 270AA of the Act. Thus, the writ of the assessee was allowed by the Court. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2022] 443 ITR 186 (Delhi) has observed as under (relevant extracts produced): • The action of the income-tax authority of denying immunity from penalty initiated under section 270A for misreporting of income was not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason as it was not specified in the penalty notice whether it is the case of 'under-reporting' o…

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)