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 of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

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 of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

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

270A(10)(c). 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not deciding on acceptance of immunity from penalty under section 270AA. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not deciding the legality of disallowance

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

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

Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 12,01,42,780/- 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.100,90,68,000 as against Rs.112,92,10,780 claimed by the appellant towards expenditure incurred on scientific research. 5.1 That

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 of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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 of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9) of section 270A is satisfied. In the absence

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

10% of Direct operational expenses on adhoc basis – Rs 5,25,487/- 8. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act stood initiated by the ld. AO for misreporting of income in respect of each of the aforesaid disallowances. A show cause notice u/s 274 read with section

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

10% of Direct operational expenses on adhoc basis – Rs 5,25,487/- 8. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act stood initiated by the ld. AO for misreporting of income in respect of each of the aforesaid disallowances. A show cause notice u/s 274 read with section

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

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting’. The High Court while quashing the penalty order has held that "there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A

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

10. It was pointed out that the assessee‘s case does not fall under any of the clauses mentioned in section 270A(9) of the Act and hence no penalty could be levied on the assessee for misreporting of income. It was pointed out that case underreporting of income are covered in section 270A(2) of the Act as under

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

10) The tax payable in respect of the under-reported income shall be— (a) where no return of income has been furnished or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148 and the income has been assessed for the first time, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as increased by the maximum

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. The assessee was issued a show- cause notice u/s 270A read with section 274 was issued on 18/03/2024." 3.2.5 On considering the AO's order and the challan receipt produced

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

10, New Delhi. Pocket-P2, Sector Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Uttar Pradesh 201315 PAN AAATG2745C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.D. Srivastava, Advocate Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate Department by: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.08.2023 Date of 26.10.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed

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 14A of the Act was restricted to Rs.6,53,02,979/- by the Ld. CIT(A), who had worked out the annual average and monthly average value of investment in mutual funds and tax-free bonds

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 14A of the Act was restricted to Rs.6,53,02,979/- by the Ld. CIT(A), who had worked out the annual average and monthly average value of investment in mutual funds and tax-free bonds

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. provided to the Petitioner to file objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated