“Section 22(1)”

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Lt.D, Gurgoan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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 ITA No.5389/Del/2024

Athena Hisar Solar Power Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Vs Dcit, Assessment Unit, Ltd., J5/132, Rajouri Garden, Civic Centre, E-2, Delhi-110027 Delhi Pan-Aaoca5969P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 26.09.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee'S Representative Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) & Also Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

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., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Circle-13(1) Business Center, Gurgaon C.R. Building, Delhi Road, South West Delhi- 110037. Pan-Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sumit Mangal, Adv. Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 23.10.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Bench Has Asked The Assessee To File Specific Ground Of Appeal No.2 As Against General Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Taken. In Compliance, Assessee Vide Application Dt. 12.03.2025 Filed Under Rule 11 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal Under. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Taken Reads As Under: Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit

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

Manlift India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 16(3), New Delhi

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 Page

Delta Electronics India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

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

Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Manesar vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Jao- DCIT/ACIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi

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

1 ITA NO. 2356, 3838 & 5988/Del/2022 FMI Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH

Avaya India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Not Available

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

Genpact India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD Range-10, Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalgenpact India Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit, Income 12A, Ground Floor,K Prakash Tax Department, 2Nd Floor, Deep Building 7 Tolstoy Marg, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Baroda House, S.O. Baroda Stadium, New Delhi House, Delhi Pan: Aabce4461B Appellant Respondent Genpact India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 12A, Ground Floor, Prakash Income Tax (Osd), Range-10 Deep Building 7 Tolstoy Marg, Central Revenue Building, Baroda House, S.O. Baroda Ito, New Delhi-110002 House, Delhi Pan: Aabce4461B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv (Virtual) &Ms.Vyushtirawat, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

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

Dnata International Private Limited, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon Or Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaldnata International Private Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Limited. Ground Floor, R1, R2, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Park Centra, Sector-30, Nh-8, Gurgaon Or Assessment Unit, Gurgaon, Haryana Income Tax Department, Pan: Aadcd7460P Gurgaon, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, Adv (Virtual) Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

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

Signify Innovations India Limited, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalsignify Innovations India Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 9B, 9Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Range Dlf Qe, S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana Code 107, Income Tax Officer, Pan: Aaicp0987G Shankar Chowk, Phase V, Udyogvihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

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

Coim India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalcoim India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Shop No. 4, Ground Floor Income Tax, Income Tax Rajendrabhawan, Patel Nagar, Department, Circle 4(2), East Central Delhi, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabcy0901A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

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

Haskoningdhv Consulting Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalhaskoningdhv Consulting Vs The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Office No. 204, Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), 2Nd Floor, Rs Tower, Plot No. B C. R. Building, New Delhi 358A, New No. 1267, New Ashok Nagar, Vasundhara Enclave, East Delhi Pan: Aaacm8966G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

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

Beam Global Spirits and Wine (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Assessment Unit, NFAC, New Delhi

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

Airbnb India Private Limited, Delhi, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Central Revenue Building, Delhi, India

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalairbnb India Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Caddie Commercial Central Revenue Building, Tower, Aerocity, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aakca5525B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ao Dated 24.07.2024 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Subsequent To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Direction Dated 27.06.2024. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/07/2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) & Also Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

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 Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Court dealing

Motorola Solutions India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 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

Avaya India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Not Available

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

At and T Communication Services India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Office of ACIT, Cr Building, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 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