“Section 22(1)”

RENEW WIND ENERGY (RAJKOT) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrenew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4810H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited,138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikajicama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4553H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

RENEW WIND ENERGY (SHIVPUR) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahayrenew Wind Energy (Shivpur) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikaji Cama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4810H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Renew Wind Energy (Rajkot) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited,138, Ansal Income Tax, Circle 19(1) Delhi Chambers, Bhikajicama Palace, Range Code-44, C. R. New Delhi Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aafcr4553H New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 13(1), , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaljohnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Luthra & Luthra Law Income Tax, Circle 13(2) Office India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Spm Civic Centre, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Johnson Matthey India P. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Appeal 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Business Centre, Income Tax Center, Gurgaon, Road, South Department West Delhi Pan: Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sumit Mangal, Adv, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv& Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant- company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-\ncompany against the order of the learned Single Judge dated\nAugust 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be\ninvoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing\nwith the winding up petition filed

VATIKA SEVEN ELEMENTS PVT. LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19]

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

ITRON INDIA P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalitron India P. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Flat No. 507, Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Bhikajicamabhawan, C. R. Building, New Delhi Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs6575L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh.Kashish Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

LS CABLE INDIA P.LTD.,REWARI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant- company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

LS CABLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant- company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

HONDA TRADING ASIA COMPANY LIMITED,THAILAND vs. DCIT, INT. TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

dismissing O.S.A.\nNo. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the\nlearned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act\ncould not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the\nHigh Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-\ncompany against the order of the learned Single Judge dated\nAugust 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be\ninvoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing\nwith the winding up petition filed

BENTLEY SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalbentley Systems India Private V Deputy Commissioner Of Limited. Work Well Suites, 10 Floor, S Income Tax, Circle 4(2), C. Max House, 1516/338,339 340 R. Building, Assessment Village Behapur Adjacent Okhla Unit, Income Tax Railway Station, Okhla Industrial Department, Delhi Estate, S.O. Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Delhi, 110020 Pan: Aabcb5645E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nishank Vashistha, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

BAXTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-\ncompany against the order of the learned Single Judge dated\nAugust 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be\ninvoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing\nwith the winding up petition filed

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant- company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

TS TECH SUN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalts Tech Sun India Private Vs The Assistant Commissioner Limited, A-47, Lower Ground Of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), C. Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- R. Building, I. P. Estate, 110016 Delhi-110002, New Delhi Pan: Aaact4324M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Sahni, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

JUBILANT GENERICS LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaljubilant Generics Limited Vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Plot 1A, Sector-16A Noida H. O. Department, Gautam Buddha Nagar, 201301, Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aadcj2401L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Nidhi, Ar (Virutal) Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

TOYO INK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaltoyo Ink India Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C-151, Naraina Industrial Area, Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Phase-1, Naraina Industrial Range 46, C. R. Building, Estate, South West, Delhi- Delhi-110002, Delhi 110028Pan: Aacct5137A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankitsahni, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

HONDA ACCESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GB NAGAR, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalhonda Access India Private Vs Assessment Unit, Income Limited Plot No. 1-D/5, Tax Department, Circle Udyogvihar, Ecotech-Ii, Alpha 5(1)(1), G B Nagar, Nodia, Greater Noida, Gautam Uttar Pradesh Buddha Nagar, 201308, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aacch9695K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nishank Vashistha, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

SAMSUNG DATA SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

dismissing O.S.A.\nNo. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the\nlearned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act\ncould not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the\nHigh Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaladidas India Marketing Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited. Office No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), C. R. Sector B Pocket No. 7 Plot No.11, Building, Delhi Vasantkunj South West Delhi Pan: Aaaca5313P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Sahni, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed

BEUMER INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed