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

1)(a) and hence the conclusion that we have under reported the income is wrong and it is evident from plain reading of section 270(A)(2)(a). 2. That the calculation of under reported income is not done according to provision of section 270A(3)(ii) which is reproduced below: “The amount of under reported income shall

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

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or 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

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

270A of the Act. Assessment Year 2021-22 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act is wrong and bad in law as the same is not accompanied by the notice of demand under

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

270A of the Act. Assessment Year 2021-22 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act is wrong and bad in law as the same is not accompanied by the notice of demand under

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

270A of the Act. Assessment Year 2021-22 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO under s. 143(3) read with s. 144C(13) of the Act is wrong and bad in law as the same is not accompanied by the notice of demand under

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

1) of section 143; (e) the amount of deemed total income assessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been filed; (f) the amount of deemed total income reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC

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

section 270A and initiation of prosecution in respect of cases of under- reporting of income if the tax and the interest payable as per the assessment or the reassessment order is paid within the period specified in the notice of demand i.e. within 30 days of the service of notice and also if no appeal has been filed against

SRI LANKA CRICKET,SRI LANKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE- 3 (1)(2), NEW DELHI

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

sections": [ "147", "148", "148A", "144C", "154", "270A", "234A", "234B", "9(1)(vi)" ], "issues": "Whether the income derived from granting live telecast rights constitutes royalty under the Income Tax Act, and if the reassessment

COMPAREX INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

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

270A of the Act in the final assessment order passed for relevant AY.” 5. Further, assessee filed following additional grounds of appeal with the application under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1962:- “Pertaining to Transfer Pricing matters 16. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by not passing the final assessment order

ITO, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. CHAMAN, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

270A is initiated separately for mis- representation of facts. (Addition: Rs. 1,24,85,492/-)" 9.1. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has uploaded detailed written submission against the additions made by the Ld. AO, along with certain details and documents. The relevant part of the appellant's written submission on the issue under reference is reproduced as under

GE PRECISION HEALTHCARE LLC,USA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

270A of the Act.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 GE Precision Healthcare LLC 4. GE Precision Healthcare LLC, is a company incorporated in the state of Delaware, USA. It carries on healthcare business for the General Electric group, and is a global medical device provider that designs, develops, manufactures

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(3) is reproduced as under:- “(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

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment order though after characterizing them differently. 13. With regard to merits, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice the findings at page 8 of the appellate order and submitted that ld. CIT (A) even though gave partial relief on supply of equipment but he sustained the supply of designs and engineering drawings as taxable overlooking the fact

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment order though after characterizing them differently. 13. With regard to merits, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice the findings at page 8 of the appellate order and submitted that ld. CIT (A) even though gave partial relief on supply of equipment but he sustained the supply of designs and engineering drawings as taxable overlooking the fact

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 3(1)(2) INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment order though after characterizing them differently. 13. With regard to merits, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice the findings at page 8 of the appellate order and submitted that ld. CIT (A) even though gave partial relief on supply of equipment but he sustained the supply of designs and engineering drawings as taxable overlooking the fact

SMS GROUP GMBH,DELHI vs. ACIT.CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment order though after characterizing them differently. 13. With regard to merits, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice the findings at page 8 of the appellate order and submitted that ld. CIT (A) even though gave partial relief on supply of equipment but he sustained the supply of designs and engineering drawings as taxable overlooking the fact

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

reassessment order though after characterizing them differently. 13. With regard to merits, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice the findings at page 8 of the appellate order and submitted that ld. CIT (A) even though gave partial relief on supply of equipment but he sustained the supply of designs and engineering drawings as taxable overlooking the fact

JAGSON INTERNATIONAL LTD. ,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagson International Ltd., Vs Dcit, H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Jangpura Extension, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Jagson International Ltd., H-35, 1St Floor, Circle-13(1), Delhi Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 014. Pan: Aaacj2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Saxena, Ms Sumangla Saxena & Shri Shyam Sunder, Advocates Revenue By : Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

reassessment proceedings and it was replied to by the assessee. The assessing officer was satisfied with the explanation and did not raise any further questions. The Tribunal has not erred in taking the view that it took, namely, that the CIT had overlooked the agreements dt.28th Feb.1995 and 30th September, 1999 which were on the record