THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

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

270A of the Act, thereby resulting in violation of mandatory provisions of section 144C of the Act. 3 Smart Cube India Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner of Income- tax W.P.(C) 12844/2021 2010-11  Income-tax return (ITR) filed by the Petitioner returning income of Rs. 3,78,120 was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued under section

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,— (i) in a case where income has been assessed for the first time,— (a) if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) in a case where no return

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 under section 43B in assessment under section 143(3

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) and 270AA(4): The Assessing Officer shall, subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in subsection (1) and after the expiry of the period of filing the appeal as specified in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penally under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs.54,031 is again made while computing total income in impugned order. Re: Others 6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in charging/ computing interest under sections 234c and 234d of the Act. 7. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty under sections 27IAAC and 270A

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

MOBINEERS INFO SYSTEMS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , CIT (A) NFAC DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Mobineers Info Systems Pvt. Vs Commissioner Of Income Ltd.O-44, Basement, Lajpat Tax (Appeals)/National Nagar-Ii, South Delhi-110065 Faceless Appeal Centre, Pan: Aaecm1120A Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Piyush Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

270A of the Income Tax Act is wrong & illegal. 2. Your petitioner prays to allow, to add, to delete, to amend any further grounds and evidence at the time of hearing of Appeal. 3. That the necessary relief may be granted to your petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income for Assessment

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

disallowed under\nthe provisions of section 4A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the said\namount is added to the total income of the assessee for AY 2017-18.\n9. I am satisfied that the provisions of section 270A

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

3. The learned DR relied on the penalty order and submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in deleting the penalty in question. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the authorities below and submitted that the difference between the assessed income and the returned income was on account

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

3,58,650/- d) Disallowance of 20% of Communication expenses on adhoc basis – Rs 5,43,803/- e) Disallowance of 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

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

3,58,650/- d) Disallowance of 20% of Communication expenses on adhoc basis – Rs 5,43,803/- e) Disallowance of 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