UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi assumed u/s 263 of the 7 Uday Kumar Vaish Act. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay being condoned in filing appeal by assessee against order dated 23.10.2015 passed by Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 4. Ld.CIT, D.R. submitted that assessee admitted to the order dated 23.10.2015 passed by Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act for revising

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay being condoned in filing appeal by assessee against order dated 23.10.2015 passed by Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. 4. Ld.CIT, D.R. submitted that assessee admitted to the order dated 23.10.2015 passed by Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act for revising

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

revised u/s 263 itself was invalid on various legal and factual grounds and thus proceeding initiated Page 2 of 14 ITA No. 3463/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] Sanjay Singh Rana Vs. PCIT u/s 263 against the invalid reassessment order is clearly bad in law.” 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

revised communication, orders, and letters. She further stated that letter dated 29.04.2010 clearly shows that wherever there are appeals dismissed by the courts for want of COD approval necessary applications may be filed where the COD has now permitted to pursue the appeal. She submitted that though the Assessment Year before the COD was not pertaining to Assessment Year

PUNEET PANDEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NOIDA

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmapuneet Pandey, Vs. Cit, Raj Kumar & Noida Associate, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Extn. Part-2, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Amzpp0202G

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The additional ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee on 30.01.2018 are challenging the validity of issue of notice u/s 263 of the Act by the ITO, Headquarters to ld PCIT instead of Ld PCIT himself. No facts are required for verification for these additional

M/S. DHANDAAI INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the disallowance determined by the ld

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4630/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Dhandaai Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Faridabad D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd7191E Assessee By : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Srivastav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2020

delay of 808 days. It was submitted that in the revision order passed u/s 263, direction was given by ld. CIT- Faridabad to the AO pursuant to which assessment order was passed u/s 263/143(3) dated 25.03.2015, against which assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A), Gurgaon on 20.04.2015. The said appeal was heard and decided

SMT. BURFI DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

condone the delay and accordingly admit the appeal for hearing. 11. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act was bad in law because the AO had correctly brought to tax interest amount of Rs. 254637/- out of the total interest received of Rs. 2638462/-. It was submitted that

SMT. BURFI DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

condone the delay and accordingly admit the appeal for hearing. 11. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act was bad in law because the AO had correctly brought to tax interest amount of Rs. 254637/- out of the total interest received of Rs. 2638462/-. It was submitted that

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. BURFI DEVI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

condone the delay and accordingly admit the appeal for hearing. 11. The Ld. AR submitted that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act was bad in law because the AO had correctly brought to tax interest amount of Rs. 254637/- out of the total interest received of Rs. 2638462/-. It was submitted that

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 9. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act as the order of Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue apart from that there exist

RITS JEWELLERS PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, FARIDABAD

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12/04/2017 at returned income of Rs. 2,07,909/-. The case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ through the CASS to verify large share premium received during the year. Notice u/s

BRIJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MEERUT vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2011-12 Brij Educational Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow A-162, Defence Colony, C.R. Building, Ito, Meerut-250001 (Up) I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aabtb4074C) New Delhi - 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 263 of the Act is arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous and unjust and is bereft of jurisdiction. The incumbent CIT(E)’s order for revision may please, therefore, be directed to be quashed. As the minor delay of less than one month in filing the appeal qua, hence, the same may be condoned

RIVET ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Page 2 of 7 ITA Nos. 1885/Del/2022 Rivet Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed returned declaring income of Rs. 1,78,430/- the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act, subsequently case was selected for limited scrutiny and an order

NIDHI AGARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. PCIT , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Us Stating That The Father Of Chartered Accountant

u/s 263 as mentioned above. It is, therefore, prayed that the above delay in filing the appeal, may kindly be condoned.” 4. The same contents are reproduced in the affidavit filed by the assessee also. Page 3 of 5 Nidhi Agarwal vs. PCIT 5. We find that there is absolutely no reason adduced by the assessee for the delay

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and dealing in all kinds of blankets in the trade name of “M/s. Khurana Wooltex”, filed his return of income on 26.09.2018, declaring total income

AMBAWATT BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (C), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

revised by the CIT under section 263 of the Act is void, as the impugned year is the year of search and the AO ought to have framed the assessment under section 153B (1) (b)/143(3), which provisions are exclusively applicable for framing the assessment of the year of search. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances

MORPHEUS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR, CIT DELHI-4, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Morpheus Developers Private Vs Pr. Cit, Ltd., Delhi-4, 1, Main Road, Delhi. Maujpur, Delhi – 110 053. Pan: Aaicm1972A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Yudhister Mehtani, Ca Revenue By : Ms Amisha S. Gupt, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pciit) U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) In Revision No.Pcit, Delhi-4/Revision-263/100000183556/2021 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 29.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Ito, Ward-17(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Pointed Out That There Was A Delay In Filing The Appeal. On Hearing On The Application For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That Primarily For The Reason That There Were Some Issues Pending Before The National Company Law Tribunal Followed By Appeal, There Could Not Be Adequate Representation Of The Assessee. In Fact, In January, 2023, The Greater Noida Authority Had Cancelled The Plot On Which The Company Was Running The Project. Thus, We Are Of The Considered View That The Delay Although Of Substantial Period Of Around 746 Days, Deserves To Be Condoned.

Revision No.PCIT, Delhi-4/Revision-263/100000183556/2021 arising out of the order dated 29.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. At the outset, the ld. AR has pointed out that there was a delay in filing the appeal. On hearing on the application for condonation