21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India

2 SCC 181Supreme Court of India2007#243 most cited
318

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajesh Kumar v. Deputy CIT · SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India · 2 SCC 181 · Section 143(3) · Section 144C · Section 153 · interpretation of law · assessment procedure · divergence of opinion · legal uncertainty

Also reported as

37 STC 425

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153(4)Section 153(1)Section 153Section 144BSection 144CSection 153(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 144cofsection 158absection 136section 261section 11(3)section 115bbe(b)section 153(4)impermissible avoidance arrangementsection 144c(4)section 193section 196section 43(3)

Judgments citing 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2221/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…s behalf has been formed by the Assessing Officer. The approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case.” 15. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the view expressed in Rajesh Kumar (supra) as under:- “29. In Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 it has been held that in view of section 136 of the Act, proceedings before an Assessing Officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings. Section 136 of the Act, stipulates that any proceeding before an Income-tax Authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for th…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. DEEPA TALWAR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2203/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…s behalf has been formed by the Assessing Officer. The approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case.” 15. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the view expressed in Rajesh Kumar (supra) as under:- “29. In Rajesh Kumar (2007) 2 SCC 181 it has been held that in view of section 136 of the Act, proceedings before an Assessing Officer are deemed to be judicial proceedings. Section 136 of the Act, stipulates that any proceeding before an Income-tax Authority shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for th…

EMAAR INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4501/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayemaar India Limited Vs Acit 306-308, 3Rd Floor, Square One, C-2, Central Circle 2 Disrict Centre, Saket, New Delhi- New Delhi 110017, Pan: Aabce4308B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sh. Neeeraj Jain, Adv, Sh. Ramit Katiyar, Ar & Ms. Mansha Bhalla, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

FEDERAL-MOGUL IGNITION PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), RANGE - 40, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4440/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayfederal Mogul Ignition Products Vs Dcit India Ltd. 10Th Floor, Towr B, Paras Circle 7(1) Twin Towers, Golf Course Road, New Delhi Sesctor-54 Gurugram, Haryana, Pan: Aaacf4128M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Nandita Singhal, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30 /01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

QUALCOMM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 4412/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

REFOP INDIA COMPANY ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4409/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrefop India Company Vs Dcit Office No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Sector-8, Circle 19(1) Pocket-7, Plot No. 11, Vasant Kunj, Delhi South West Delhi Pan: Aaacr3007K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms.Taranjeet Kaur, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

PERSOLKELLY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4390/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahaypersolkelly India Private Limited Vs Dcit Unit No. 1202, 1203, 1204, 12Th Circle 19(1), Floor, Tower C, Unitech Cyber Park, C. R. Building, Sector 29, Gurgaon, Haryana Delhi Pan: Aabck6665K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, GURUGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4302/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayintercontinental Hotels Group (India) Vs Dcit Private Limited, 11Th Floor, Building Ao Type-C, Range Code- 10, Tower, C, Fld Cyber City Phase- 53, A.O Number-C, Circle- Ii, Gurugram, Haryana 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Aagcs7613G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ajin Kumar Jain, Ca, Ms. Nikhila Bhalla, Ca & Ms. Shreyanshi Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

DENTSPLY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4261/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahaydentsply India Private Limited V National Faceless Khasra No. 6/20 & 66/11/2, Gali S Assessment Centre, No. 2 Main Rohtak Road Mundka Lok Nayak Bhawan, Industrial Area, New Delhi Khan Market, New Delhi Pan: Aaacd3171E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pranay Gandhi, Adv (Virtual) Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

LONZA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4155/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahaylonza India Pirvate Limited Vs Dcit Novus Tower, Ground Floor, Plot No. Circle 1(1), Hsiidc 18, Sector 18, Palam Road, Building, Vanijyanikunj, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122015 Udyogvihar, Phase-V, Pan: Aaacc8679A Gurgaon, Haryana

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 5

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

G-MOBILE DEVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1)(1), NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3883/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayg-Mobile Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Unit No. B-301, Third Floor, Tower- Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam B, Plot No. 7, Advant Iet Park, Buddha Nagar, Nodia, Sector 142, Noida, 201301 201301, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aagcg5071N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 5

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

FUJITSU CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3878/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

MIH INTERNET SEA PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1683/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahaymih Internet Sea Pte Ltd. Vs The Assessing Officer 1 Scotts Roas,# 21-07, Shaw Centre, Regional E-Assessment Singapore, Unit, National E- Pan:Aakcm7136N Assessment Centre, (Nwr/C/53/1, Jurisdiction Circle 1(1), Gurgaon Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv (Virtual, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By Sh. Shlock Chandra, Special Counsel & Sh. Udit Dad, Adv Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

QUALCOMM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 537/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayheadstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit 12A, Ground Floor, Prakash Deep Circle 10(1) Building 7, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabct7650D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

QUALCOMM INDIA PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19 (1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 2374/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

FUJITSU CONSULTING INDIA PVT LTD NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7,(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 1698/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

ROLLS-ROYCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1672/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrolls-Royce India Private Limited Vs Acit 2Nd Floor, Birla Tower (West), 25 Circle 19(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabcr5277Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Tiwary, Ca(Virtual) Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

FUJITSU CONSULTING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 1508/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

ORANGE BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 857/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayorange Business Services India V Assistant Commissioner Of Solutions Private Limited S Income Tax, Circled 3(1) 2Nd 8Th Floor, Infinity Tower B, Dlf Floor, Hsiidc Building, Cybercity, Phase-Ii, Sector 25, Near Shankar Chowk, N. H Gurugram 8, Udyogvihar V, Gurugram Pan: Aabce4540P Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kshitij Bansal, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)

…the discussions made hereinbefore, must be found out from the statutory scheme. As indicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India ((1976) 2 SCC 181 1976 SCC (Tax) 177: (1976) 37 STC 425] Untwalia, J., speaking for the Bench, opined (SCC p. 188, para 15) 15. Apropos the fourth and the last submission of the appellant, suffice it to say that even assuming that the revisional power cannot be exercised suomotu after an unduly long delay, on the facts of this case it is plain that it was not so don…

Showing 1–20 of 318 · Page 1 of 16

...
21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India (2 SCC 181) — Cited in 318 Judgments | BharatTax