ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) and there has to be a deliberate attempt on part of the assessee to conceal the particulars of income. The Appellant contended that since it had disclosed all the material facts to the AO, it cannot be said that it had concealed particulars of income. However, the AO has observed on this issue and has relied

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

u/s 270A of the Act are highly vague in as much as they do not state as to which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ant the penalty was levied on the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic film and polyester chips and have in-house research

TREND MICRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

160/- on account of interest outstanding receivables. Against the order of TPO/AO, assessee did not prefer appeal and accepted the adjustments made by TPO/AO. Consequently, AO determined the arm's length OP/OC at 13.87% and made the net addition of Rs. 1,49,88,795/- which was computed being difference between figures as shown by assessee and as finally computed

SHOURYA TOWERS PVT LTD vs. DCIT

160/-. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These proceedings were completed on 30.06.2008 by levying minimum penalty of `.44,27,692/-. The Assessing officer, in his order, stated that neither in the original return nor in the letter in response to notice under Section 153A, was the income has declared. Such a conduct

BABOO RAM HARI CHAND,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2015-16]

271(1)(b) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.60,000/- on the ground of non-compliance of notices issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. 4. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the proceedings for the assessment year 2015-16 initiated in the case of the assessee vide notice u/s 153C

SANJEEV CHOUDHARY,SIRSA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Choudhary Vs. Dcit C/O Sudhindra Jain & Co. Central Circle 113/7A, Indra Jit Jian Marg, Ghaziabad Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur 208002 Pan No.Aeypc5911Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore the impugned penalty order is void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 12. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by sustaining the penalty, which is wholly unjustified, without proper basis, too much high & excessive and deserves

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

u/s 270A are also proposed to be initiated as the assessee has under reported its income.” 46. In this regard, it is submitted that the aforesaid assumption of the assessing officer is far-fetched and without any basis; even assuming for the sake of argument that the know-how has been generated as a result of R&D services rendered

GULSHAN CHEMICALS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

160 allegedly on the basis that the quantum appeal on the said issue has been decided against the appellant, not appreciating that considering the merits of the matter the said disallowance was otherwise not warranted. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of penalty under section 271

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2)(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 143(13) read with Section 144C (1) of the Act, by DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi . I.T.A. No. 1135/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) has erred in computing the total income

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 143(13) read with Section 144C (1) of the Act, by DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi . I.T.A. No. 1135/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) has erred in computing the total income

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s 143(13) read with Section 144C (1) of the Act, by DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi . I.T.A. No. 1135/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) has erred in computing the total income

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

section 143(3) of the\nAct was completed on 17.03.2015 by accepting the return income.\nSubsequently, the case was reopened for the reason that appellant has\nsold immovable property for consideration of Rs. 1,91,00,000/- during\nfinancial year 2011-12. The assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was\ncompleted after making addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Penalty Order under New Delhi order dated section 271(1)(c) of order dated 30.06.2015 the Income Tax Act, 28.11.2017 1961. 13. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order New Delhi order dated under section 143(3) order dated 18.03.2015 of the Income Tax Act, 03.11.2017 1961. 14. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Penalty Order under New Delhi order dated section 271(1)(c) of order dated 30.06.2015 the Income Tax Act, 28.11.2017 1961. 13. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order New Delhi order dated under section 143(3) order dated 18.03.2015 of the Income Tax Act, 03.11.2017 1961. 14. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Penalty Order under New Delhi order dated section 271(1)(c) of order dated 30.06.2015 the Income Tax Act, 28.11.2017 1961. 13. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order New Delhi order dated under section 143(3) order dated 18.03.2015 of the Income Tax Act, 03.11.2017 1961. 14. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Penalty Order under New Delhi order dated section 271(1)(c) of order dated 30.06.2015 the Income Tax Act, 28.11.2017 1961. 13. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order New Delhi order dated under section 143(3) order dated 18.03.2015 of the Income Tax Act, 03.11.2017 1961. 14. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Penalty Order under New Delhi order dated section 271(1)(c) of order dated 30.06.2015 the Income Tax Act, 28.11.2017 1961. 13. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order New Delhi order dated under section 143(3) order dated 18.03.2015 of the Income Tax Act, 03.11.2017 1961. 14. Revenue 2012-13 CIT(A)-26, Assessment Assessment Order