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

8,50,57,518 10,14,17,681 97.73.932 November 1,88,93,265 1,88,93,265 1,88,93,265 0 December 2,24,12,884 12,82,72,687 10.49.59.803 9,00,000 2,24,12,884 0 January 6,59,26,638 16,55,53,415 9,89,26,777 6,59,26,638 0 February

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 was bad in Law, wrong, having no base and against the circumstance of the case. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the assessing officer had erred in assessing the Penalty of the appellant the amount received under voluntary retirement scheme has been a total composite package under a scheme of voluntary separation, While

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. In fact, the assessee has duly explained the discrepancy arising due to purchase returns which was, however, not accepted by the Ld. AO and the addition of this account was made during the assessment proceedings. Subsequently, in order to buy peace, the assessee did not file further appeal against the impugned addition

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

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidence under Rule 29 of ITAT:\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible plants

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

section 80 IA of the Act, the\nassessee has also made application for submission of following additional\nevidences under Rule 29 of ITAT:\n\na) Detailed working of enhanced deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act.\nb) Chartered engineer's certificate computing the equivalent value of\nsteam.\nc) Supplementary Form 10CCBs along with power accounts of all the\neligible

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. 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

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

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

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

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:

Section 270A and 271AAC of the Act. 14. That Appellant reserves its right to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal, before the appeal is finally heard.” 4. Heard and perused the record. In regard to grounds No.1 and 11, we find that the same are general in nature and grounds No.12, 13 and 14 are consequential, thus

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:

Section 270A and 271AAC of the Act. 14. That Appellant reserves its right to add, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal, before the appeal is finally heard.” 4. Heard and perused the record. In regard to grounds No.1 and 11, we find that the same are general in nature and grounds No.12, 13 and 14 are consequential, thus