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. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. 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. 16 PCIT vs Wickwood Development Limited ITA 451/2024 2008-09  The assessee is company incorporated in BVI on 13.05.1991.  A search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 22.03.2012 in M/s Focus Energy group.  Thereafter, a notice under

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

section 270A(3)(ii) which is reproduced below: “The amount of under reported income shall be: (ii) In any other case, the difference between the amount of income assessed, recomputed and the amount of income assessed, reassessed

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. 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

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

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

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) are present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion