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

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

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

3) of the Act dated 01.10.2019 was ultimately completed at the same income at the same loss figure of Rs. 449,80,57,749/- as was disclosed by the assessee in the revised computation of total income filed on 18.09.2019. 8. In response to the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A of the Act dated 01.10.2019, the assessee submitted a reply

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

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order:" 8. The A.O. in the penalty notice as well as in the order of penalty has not specified applicable limb has not mentioned the specific limb in Section 270A(3

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

reassessment whereas when it comes to the period of payment the reference is to the notice of demand. The amount mentioned in the notice of demand will have to be paid as the word' such' is used before 3 notice of demand whereas there is no mention of notice of demand in the earlier part of clause

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)

270A of the Act.” 11. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue argued the matter and filed the written submissions which are reproduced below :- “After the introduction of faceless assessment scheme, lot of legislative changes were also made in the Income Tax Act, for example till 31.03.2022 the NeAC was mandated to pass all the assessment orders. From

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. 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. 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

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

ADOBE SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270A of the Act. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in development of software in various stages like engineering, research, development, debugging, coding, quality control checks, testing application, designing & programming and is exporting its services to. M/s Adobe Systems

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

AERO CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-49(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

270A of the Act for underreporting of income.” 4 Aero Club 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal under Rule 29 of Income Tax (AT) Rules, 1963: “3.1 That the Assessment Order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) pursuant to Hon’ble DRP directions dated 23.06.2022 is time barred

HEMKUNT SERVICE STATION P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Hemkunt Service Station P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Link Road, Circle-10(1) Near Lodhi Hotel, New Delhi. Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 003 Pan Aaach0310H (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment under Section 263 of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting option of the A.O. by that of the Pr. CIT. 7. On the facts and circumstances

SAGE INTERNATIONAL INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

270A of the Act. Further, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee is a company, incorporated in US in the year 1999, domiciled in USA and only US sourced income which is taxable in USA and has been so taxed in US. There has never been any income

TABLEAU INTERNATION UNLIMITED COPMANY THE OVAL SHELBOURNE ROAD OVEL BALLSBRIDGE DUBLIN,IRELAND D04E7K5,IRELAND vs. DCIT,CIRCLE3(1)(1) INTERNATIOANAL TAXATION , DELHI

Appeal stands allowed in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

270A of the Act on account of under-reporting of income due to misreporting thereof. 2.1 The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal, which are as under: “1. Additional Grounds of appeal: 1.1 With regard to the captioned matter, it is most respectfully submitted that the Appellant had raised additional grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal

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

section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.5. In view of the discussion in forgoing para no. 8.3.1., 8.3.2. and 8.4 above, Id. AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 2,66,50,843/-. Accordingly, ground no. 6 of the appeal is allowed. 9. In ground no. 7 of the appeal, the appellant has challenged

HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, IT & TP DELHI 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

270A read with section 274 of the IT Act is initiated separately for under reporting of income of Rs.1,50,66,205/-. 4. Order Giving Effect dtd. 27.01.2022 has been received on 27.01.2022 from TPO - DC/ACIT-2 (1) (1), Delhi in case history notings and 360 * profile. However, on perusal of the 360* profile, case history notings, view/download notices/order

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

3(1)(2), Delhi has erred in conducting the reassessment\nproceedings and passing the final reassessment order under\nsection 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as the\nrequirements of the Section 148A read with Section 148 of the Act\nhave not been met. Accordingly, the final reassessment order and\ndraft assessment order under Section