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

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

9. This Court is further of the view that the impugned action of Respondent 1 is contrary to the avowed legislative intent of Section 270-AA of the Act to encourage/incentivise a taxpayer to (i) fast track settlement of issue; (ii) recover tax demand; and (iii) reduce protracted litigation." According to Mr. Jolly, the initiation of action under 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 of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub- section (9

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(8) without taking into account the provisions of section 270A(9

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

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

270A(3) to section 27A(5) of the Act remain also totally un-complied with. The submission therefore is that, notices are vague and thus illegal Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) W.P(C) 5111/2022 (Del) dated 28.03.2022 Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd vs. ACIT ii) 288 Taxmam 768 (Del) Prem Brothers Infrastructure

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

9) and without giving any cogent reasons, same could not be sustained. 6.5 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs NFAC (2023) (152 taxmann.com 382) (Mumbai Trib.) has held that where Assessing Officer made addition under section 43CA read with section 56(2)(x), case of assessee did not fall in category

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

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

9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny Immunity from Imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the Impugned order manifestly arbitrary." 15. It is further submitted that following the above-mentioned judgment of Hon'ble Delhi HC, the Division Bench

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

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 of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9

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 of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9

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

disallowed. The assessee opted for DTVSV Scheme for 3 years to wind up the tax liability. It has not intentionally under reported, or misreported income and had voluntarily 3 revised the return during the assessment proceedings and paid taxes of Rs. 51,06,900/- 5. The explanation of the assessee was not acceptable to the Ld. AO who calculated

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 2(1)(1)-DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

disallowance of Data Processing Cost has dealt and decided this issue in the following manner:- I.T.A. No. 1717/Del/2022 “15. Now, coming to the main issue i.e., whether the reimbursement of data processing cost of Rs.34,03,734, amounts to royalty or not, we find from the record that the assessee is engaged in the banking business and operates in India

SAS FASHIONS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

9. The assessee in quantum appeal before the ld. CIT(A), got part relief on account of other expense of Rs. 1,53,053/-. The balance disallowance of depreciation Rs. 79,12,860/- was upheld by the CIT(A) which was not contested further by the assessee. 10. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal against the penalty order

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1) (1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Data Processing Cost has dealt and decided this issue in the following manner:- “15. Now, coming to the main issue i.e., whether the reimbursement of data processing cost of Rs.34,03,734, amounts to royalty or not, we find from the record that the assessee is engaged in the banking business and operates in India through branch

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 2(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-22 With Assessment Year: 2020-21. Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Vs. Acit, Mumbai, Circle- Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), 14Th Floor, The Ruby 29 New Delhi Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra Pan :Aacci9974L (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of Data Processing Cost has dealt and decided this issue in the following manner:- “15. Now, coming to the main issue i.e., whether the reimbursement of data processing cost of Rs.34,03,734, amounts to royalty or not, we find from the record that the assessee is engaged in the banking business and operates in India through branch

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

9. The assessee has challenged disallowance of provision for maintenance for the project executed by the assessee amounting to Rs.105,96,46,297/- The Assessing Officer has held that this provision has been made on estimated basis and unascertained liability. The assessee submitted that it has to maintain or repair the defects in the projects executed by it during