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

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

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income.‖ 11. The assessee‗s case would fall only in clause (g) of Section 270A(2) of the Act as the ultimate assessment had the effect of reducing the loss retuned by the assessee. It was further pointed out that under reporting of income has got certain

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 order. To avail this immunity, assessee is required to file an application in Form 68 within 1 month from the end of the month in which the assessment order is received by the assessee. It has been provided that in case conditions specified are fulfilled, then the assessing officer upon expiry of the period of filing of appeal

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

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

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

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

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

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

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

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

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act as valid. 5.2 On the issue of addition, the Ld. CIT (A) concurred with the directions dated 19.04.2023 of the Ld. DRP in respect of similar addition made in AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC

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

8. This is the starting point of the entire quarrel. 9. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. Judicial decisions considered wherever necessary and relevant. 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently claimed

ATAAT RAHAT KHAN,GURGAON vs. DCIT/ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

reassessment order is illegal and bad in law, since proper and valid sanction for issuance of notice was not obtained under section 151 of the Act and communication to the appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no draft assessment order under Section 144B of the Act was served upon the appellant

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

reassessment order and\ndraft assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s 144, notices\nissued under Section 148/148A and order passed under Section\n148A(d) of the Act is bad in law, void ab initio and liable to be\nquashed.\n2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe learned AO has erred in holding that

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

HARISH BANGA,HISAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the substantial ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) Harish Banga, Assessment Unit, 264, Bank Colony, Hisar, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit Haryana – 125001. Income Tax Department, Pan – Abqpb 8845 F New Delhi-110001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri H.K. Batra, Ca & Shri Naman Chawla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12 .2025 O R D E R Per : Pawan Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit (A) Dated 08.07.2025 Vide Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

270A for alleged under-reporting of income, which was raised as a ground of appeal before the CIT(A). 5.2 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the disallowance of expenses does not constitute under-reporting of income, as the commission income of Rs. 13,50,380/- was fully disclosed in the return of income, and the dispute pertains

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATAX INIDA LIMITED, DELHI

section 148A. The\n\nrelevant observations of the hon'ble high court as contained in para 29\nto 32 of the order reads as under:\n\n29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the import of Explanation 3\nas well as the language in which Section 147 of the Act stands couched,\nwe find no justification to differ

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