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

68,56,668/-, payments of R and R Charges amounting to Rs. 26,85,668 were not paid before the due date for furnishing the return of income of the previous year under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act., the assessee had claimed the above mentioned payments in the ITR which makes it evident that the assessee

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

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

270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC. iv. The Assessee has also not filled any appeal u/s 246A against the assessment order dated 16/09/2022 and not interest in future. v. The Assessee has truthfully presented all the facts before you and this is the bonafide explanation of the Assessee. The Assessee has not deliberately

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

6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material available on record. We note that the cases of mis-reporting of income as enumerated in section 270A(9) of the Act are as under: “270A(9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub- section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation

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

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

CRITEO SINGAPORE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT CIRICLE 1(2)(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

68 taxmann.com 8. In view of the decision of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited (supra) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. and New Skies Satellite B.V. , we are of the considered opinion that that the provisions of Explanations 5 and 6 to section 9(1)(vi) cannot

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

SANJAY KUMAR,IRELAND vs. ACIT, INT.TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO erred in law in proposing the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for underreporting of income.” 2. The assesse had e-filed his return of income u/s. 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 07.08.2019 declaring an income

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

6) were issued to the loan creditors. Based on the replies received and analysis of bank statements, the Assessing Officer held that many creditors had received equivalent funds shortly before 2 advancing loans to the assessee and had low returned income. It was inferred that the lenders lacked independent financial standing to extend such loans. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 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

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

JONES LANG LASALLE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1), DELHI, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

68,083/- to total income of Appellant on account of adjustment to arm's length SA No. 61/Del/2025 price ("ALP") for international transactions entered by Appellant with its Associated Enterprises. 8. Ld. ΑΟ/ΤPO/DRP have erred, in law and in facts: 8.1 Claiming that reference is made to Ld. TPO but not providing details/ copy of such reference

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