JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A

JAINA MARKETING & ASSOCIATES,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D at 3,20,962/- and levied penalty of 99,177/-. Since the facts are identical, for the detailed discussion in the earlier part of this order, we cancel the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). x) ITA No. 5481/D/2019 dated 2.8.2024 Rukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 11. Since, we have

INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -1 SONEPAT, SONEPAT, HARYANA vs. OM MINIRALS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 43B made in assessment order under section 143(3) is wrong and bad in law. 6. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not deciding on invocation of provisions of section 270A

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A

AJAY PAL SINGH,NOIDA GAUTOM BUDDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(1) NOIDA GBN, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. As per clause (c) of section 270A(6) of the Act, no penalty

JAYPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

Section 270A(9) of the Act i.e. "misrepresentation or suppression of facts". Clearly on facts and law involved, there is no "misrepresentation or suppression of facts" in this case. 10. That there is just and reasonable cause for the default, if any, and as such too, no penalty is leviable in this case. 11. That the penalty as levied

ACIT CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI vs. MAHASHIAN DI HATTI PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2017-18

section 270A alleging misreporting of income, however, fact that assessee had furnished all details of transactions relating to disallowance made

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Dcit, C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co., 611, Surya Central Circle-14, Kiran Building, 19 K.G.Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapg2240G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Rahul Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2024

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer,31[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner

UJALA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 40(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A

UJALA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,NSP PITAMPURA DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A

GREENWOODS GOVT. OFFICERS WELFARE SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. 4. In response to show cause notice, the assessee vide letter dated 16.02.2022 stated that it is a regular tax payer and was unaware that interest income earned by is not exempt till assessment in its case for AY 2013-14 was completed wherein the same was disallowed

JUBILANT SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18

section 270A(6)(a), as, the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the disallowance made under Section 14A is a valid

NIRJEET SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Nirjeet Singh Vs Ito Ward 52(1) 117, Palika Bazar New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablps0458C

disallowed and penalty proceedings on this for under reporting in consequences of misreporting of income has been initiated within the meaning of sub- section(9) of section 270A

ACIT CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

270A of the Act are hereby initiated separately for under reporting of the income in consequence of misreporting thereof.” 14. The disallowance under section

ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

270A of the Act are hereby initiated separately for under reporting of the income in consequence of misreporting thereof.” 14. The disallowance under section

AKUMS DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

270A of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who gave part relief. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied on the disallowance of Education Cess and upheld the penalty levied on the disallowance of claim of deduction under section

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 270A of the Act.” 3. The assessee has also moved an application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 dated 08.02.2024 seeking admission of additional ground which read as under: “"Re: Disallowance