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

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

270A(9) is hereby confirmed. Ground of appeal no. 1 is hereby dismissed.” 3. Heard and perused the record. 2 3.1 The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds : “Grounds of appeal. (1). That the order passed by lower authorities is against the principles of natural justice as the appellant is eligible for immunity

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

270A of the Act. 19 20 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN OTHERWISE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY "INACCURATE" PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AS ALL FACTS ARE BROUGHT OR RECORD WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INACCURATE OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE AND THEREFORE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW: It is further submitted that assessee had not furnished

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

9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the penalty order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary". The High Court directs the respondent to grant immunity under Section 270M

INMARSAT SOLUTIONS BV,MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 2(1)(1)-DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

68 and para 4.2.2 submits that the DRP confirmed the draft order of the Assessing Officer only for the reason that the Department did not accept the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Communication Co. Ltd. (supra) and New Skies 2 I.T.A. No. 1717/Del/2022 Satellite (supra) and SLPs have been filed against

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINTON, USA,WASHINGTON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(2) INT.TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

68,670 is in the nature of fee for technical services / Fee for Included Services as per the provisions of section 9( 1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') respectively. 3. That the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP, on the facts and in law, have erred

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON INC.,USA vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kul Bharat

68,670 is in the nature of fee for technical services / Fee for Included Services as per the provisions of section 9( 1)(vii) of the Act and under Article 12 of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') respectively. 3. That the Ld. AO and Hon'ble DRP, on the facts and in law, have erred

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

9(1)(vi) and (vii) of the IT Act and as per Article 12(4) of the DTAA\nalso, chargeable to tax u/s 115A(1)(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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

9 to 11\nhours daily. Neither in the FY 2016-17 except on 08.11.2016 nor in the\nimmediate preceding financial year 2015-16, the assessee has ever\nreported a single day cash sales exceeding Rs.2,00,00,000/- or more in\na single day.\n7.1 Assesse is claiming which is not real, which cannot be genuine. It is\nclaimed that

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

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

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

9(1)(ii) of the Act, and without 2 Sanjay Kumar appreciating that the appellant is non-resident and such income earned in rendering services outside India. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. DRP/ AO has erred in failing to appreciate the applicability of Article 15 of the India-UAE and India

GE ENGINE SERVICES LLC,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. the ITAT's findings on this\npoint are, therefore, erroneous, this question is accordingly answered in\nfavour of the revenue.\nOn the basis of submission of assessee as well as discussion in the foregoing\nparas the services provided by the assessee are in the nature of fees for\ntechnical services u/s 9

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