CRITEO SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT CIRICLE 1(2)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

270A of the Act r.w.s 274 of the Act. 3. The assessee has not pressed Ground Nos. 1.3 and 1.4. The same are dismissed as not pressed. The assessee has also raised an additional legal ground of DRP giving the direction without DIN which was not pressed. The same is also not admitted as not pressed. 4. Briefly stated

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation and brought forward loss shall be allowed to the assessee for such previous year. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "plant" includes ships, aircraft, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatus and equipment, used for the purposes of the said business; (ii) "mineral oil" includes petroleum and natural gas.” 8. Thus, a reading of the above section shows that

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation and brought forward loss shall be allowed to the assessee for such previous year. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "plant" includes ships, aircraft, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatus and equipment, used for the purposes of the said business; (ii) "mineral oil" includes petroleum and natural gas.” 8. Thus, a reading of the above section shows that

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation and brought forward loss shall be allowed to the assessee for such previous year. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "plant" includes ships, aircraft, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatus and equipment, used for the purposes of the said business; (ii) "mineral oil" includes petroleum and natural gas.” 8. Thus, a reading of the above section shows that

SAGE INTERNATIONAL INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

270A of the Act. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee is a company, incorporated in US in the year 1999, domiciled in USA and only US sourced income which is taxable in USA and has been so taxed in US. There has never been any income

UMRI POOPH PRATAPPUR TOOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaumri Pooph Pratappur Vs. Acit, Circle 25(1) Tollway Private Limited Cr Building, Ito 907, New Delhi House, Ip Estate 27 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110002 Connaught Place, Delhi – 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu3925G Appellant .. Respondent

depreciation @ 25% on ‘Right under service agreement’ as intangible asset. However, the AO considered it to be not an asset and allowed the project to be amortized. In para 2 Assessing Officer mentions that since assessee ‘under reported’ his income in consequence of misreporting within meaning of Section 270A of the Act penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act were

ACIT CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LIFESTYLE PROBUILD PVT LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

9) of section 270A for the said previous year. Explanation. —For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value— 10 ITA No.3552/Del./2019 (i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or (ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction

BAKER HUGHES ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES UK LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

270A of the Act.” 3. The assessee, Baker Hughes Energy Technology UK Limited, is a company incorporated in, and a tax resident of, United Kingdom (UK). It is a part of Baker Hughes Group of companies. In this case, the return of income for AY 2020-21 was e-filed on 31.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs.83

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

270A of the Act read with section ('r.w.s.) 274 of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute, withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

270A of the Act read with section ('r.w.s.) 274 of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute, withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. The Appellant

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

depreciation on books and disallowance of Rs. 12,809,199/- on account of deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) of the Act. The ITAT also upheld the disallowances vide order dated 7th April, 2009. A penalty of Rs. 27,935,589/- was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-02, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN vs. OTSUKA CHEMICAL INDIA PVT. LTD., ABHINASH MANSION

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

depreciation claimed by the assessee in the P & L account is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee.” 5. The amount disallowed by the Assessing Officer stands offered to tax even before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings and the fact was duly appraised to the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 270A

INNOVATIVE TEXTILES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Innovative Textiles Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), 81, Vighyan Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Aaaci0473J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Department/National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Orders Of The Learned Lower Tax Authorities Is/Are Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case.

9. That the lower tax authorities had contrary to law and facts of the case, without any basis and merely on surmises and conjectures, charged interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Income - tax Act, 1961 that the lower tax authorities had contrary to law and facts of the case, without any basis and merely on surmises

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

depreciation. 23. Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A.” 10. The assessee also filed clarificatory/supplementary ground of appeal under rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the same is reproduced below: "24. Impugned order is time barred as no valid reference appears to have been made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO”) as prescribed under

NOIDA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

9 to 13]\n9.\nIn view of the above facts, law and judicial precedents, the upward variation of\nINR, 1,60,21,483 was not warranted in the present case.”\n10.\nOn the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that as per section 94B of the Act, the\nAO has to compute the amount of disallowance of interest even