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. 2 CO No. 16/Del/2024 Om Minerals 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in deleting the penalty without appreciating the fact that the assessee was duly knowing the fact that the payments of Interest on R & R Charges amounting to Rs. 14,40,051/-, payments

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

68 for immunity as per u/s 270AA online within 30 days i.e 08.10.2022 5. The Assessee have not received any demand as per 156 demand and accepted the case demand, because the Assessee did not want any kind of litigation in the future. iii. The said provision provides immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A

AMAR NATH,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

68,512/- on 27.01.2020 which was within the specified period as mentioned in the notice of demand issued u/s 156 of the Act. Relying provisions of Section 270AA of the Act he submitted that as the demand was settled within the specified period and no appeal against the assessment order was filed the conditions stood complied so assessee

NIRJEET SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Nirjeet Singh Vs Ito Ward 52(1) 117, Palika Bazar New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablps0458C

section 270A(9) of the Act and, it is only mentioned at the time of passing order. Accordingly, the assessee, under a bonafide belief and in order to buy peace, had filed an application in Form 68

VISION DIAGNOSTIC INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 26(2), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 of I.T Act, 1961 and above discussed judicial pronouncements, it is evident that the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction as well was on the appellant, in case of cash credit in its books of accounts. It is to be reiterated that in the present case appellanthas failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

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

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

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

KNOWLARITY COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(2), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Knowlarity Communications India Vs Acit, Private Ltd., Circle 14(2), Awfis, 7Th Floor, Delhi. Ambience Mall, Nh-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan : Aafck1875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

68 of the Act. 11. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the explanations given, evidence produced and material placed and made available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted. The observation/addition made is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, highly excessive and based on surmises and conjectures. 12. That interest under Section 234A, 234B

ATUL MARDIA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Knowlarity Communications India Vs Acit, Private Ltd., Circle 14(2), Awfis, 7Th Floor, Delhi. Ambience Mall, Nh-8, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan : Aafck1875R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocates Revenue By : Ms Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

68 of the Act. 11. That in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, the explanations given, evidence produced and material placed and made available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted. The observation/addition made is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, highly excessive and based on surmises and conjectures. 12. That interest under Section 234A, 234B

ROLLS-ROYCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DCIT TP 3(2)(1), DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

270A of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the Appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.- 252/Del/2022 Rolls- Royce India Pvt. Ltd. 2. Facts of the case may be concisely described

BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CIRCLE, BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Bharat Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Devsar Mod, Opp. Delhi Police Circle Bhiwani. School, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021. Pan-Aamfb0628H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv., Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. & Shri Parth Singhal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2024

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) r.w. section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business manufacturing and trading of Guar, Guar dall, Guar Churi, Rui, Sarson, Sarson Oil, Khal Binola and Joe etc. The assessee had filed its return of income, declaring

RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

270A and 271D of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law; of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law; All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. notwithstanding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. SAMYAK METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1846/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit, Samyak Metals Pvt. Ltd., Room No.225 E, 2Nd Floor, 441-B, 2Nd Floor, Vs. C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, Katra Nabi Bux, New Delhi. Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Pan No.Aahcs8928H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 and brought to tax under section 115BBE. Further, interest of Rs.53,77,127/- claimed on these loans was disallowed on the ground that the underlying loans were not genuine. Penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 270A

SANKYU INDIA LOGISTICS & ENGINERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 21/09/2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18 by imposing penalty of Rs. 5,07,847/-. Aggrieved by the order of penalty, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18/09/2015, dismissed the Appeal filed

SANKYU INDIA LOGISTICS & ENGINERING PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), HARYANA

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 21/09/2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18 by imposing penalty of Rs. 5,07,847/-. Aggrieved by the order of penalty, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18/09/2015, dismissed the Appeal filed

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.

68. On an overall conspectus of the various decisions handed down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court insofar as Fixed Place PE and DAPE are concerned as well as the language of Article 5, we have no hesitation in 22 holding that the LO failed to meet the threshold requirements so as to constitute

SATENDRA KUMAR,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, ground no.1 and

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Satendra Kumar, Income Tax Officer, H. No.60, Gali No.2, Mamura, Noida, Vs Gautam Budh Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan:Arwpk 1280 B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

68 of the Act, and in consequently Satendra kumar levying tax at the rate of 60% along with surcharge at 25%. The Learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the said amendment, being substantive and penal in nature, cannot be applied retrospectively to cash receipts or credits pertaining to the period prior to its enactment on 15th December