BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

B-C-D) April 21.63.28.587 41,63,28,587 20,00,00,000 21,63,28,587 May 15,94,03,437 57.30,73,351 40,38,95,982 16,91,77,369 -9,773,932 June 2,60,82,167 2,60,82,167 2,60,82,167 0 July

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

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

ACIT CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LIFESTYLE PROBUILD PVT LTD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: AO; that valuation report dated 15.03.2012 prepared by the Chartered Accountant as per rule 11UA

68,26,585/- respectively for the year ended 31.03.2015. It had accumulated profits of Rs.84,64,30,563/- as on 31.03.2015. It seems that the decision of the investor to make investment in the appellant company was a strategic business move keeping in mind the market opportunities. Therefore, the purpose of investment is demonstrated to be genuine and conversion

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

2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penally under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A (4) The Assessing Officer

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

270A of the Act.” 3. The assessee has also moved an application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 dated 08.02.2024 seeking admission of additional ground which read as under: “"Re: Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs 12,01,42,780 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts

KARAM VIR YADAV,GURGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

270A(9). 6. Sir, I am submitted a copy of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for your record. 7. I request you to drop this notice and oblige me in this regard.” 5. After considering the above, ld. PCIT rejected the submissions of the assessee and observed that the judgments relied upon by the assessee has been discussed and which

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

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

68 taxmann.com 143 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “29. Having stated the above, we must clarify that the income falling within Section 115A(1)(b) the Act which does not fall within the four corners of Section 44DA(1) of the Act would also no taxable under Section 4488(1) of four corners

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

68 taxmann.com 143 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “29. Having stated the above, we must clarify that the income falling within Section 115A(1)(b) the Act which does not fall within the four corners of Section 44DA(1) of the Act would also no taxable under Section 4488(1) of four corners

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

68 taxmann.com 143 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “29. Having stated the above, we must clarify that the income falling within Section 115A(1)(b) the Act which does not fall within the four corners of Section 44DA(1) of the Act would also no taxable under Section 4488(1) of four corners

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

b)(A) and 115A(1)(b)(B) of the\nIncome Tax Act. The assessee was required to deduct Tax at source on\nPage | 47\nITA Nos.4635, 5000, 2060, 4999, 4648, 3988,\n2061, 1455, 2062 & 1456/Del/2024\n& C.O.Nos.11, 32, 33, 34/Del/2025 & 89, 90 & 91/Del/2024\nthe remittance amounting to Rs.87,34,375/- and thus after obtaining\nthe approval from the competent

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

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

2 | P a g e Nirjeet Singh VS. ITO WARD 52(1), DELHI Thereafter, the Ld. AO proceeded to impose penalty of Rs. 10,69,286/- u/s 270A(9) of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2024. 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following

PLANETCAST INTERNATIONAL PTE.LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

b of the DTAA. 46. Further, receipts are also not in the nature of FTS as per Explanation 2 of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. 47. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in light of the decisions referred to hereinabove, payments received by the assessee as consideration for providing disaster recovery playout services