AMARJIT SINGH BAKSHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

condoned the delay in the appeals preferred by the assessee [ITA 577/2008 and ITA 1291/2008] via order dated 01.11.2017. 4. The important aspect is that while the majority view of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] as reflected by perusing the orders dated 22.04.2003 and 24.06.2003, on merits, is in favour of the assessee, the said view

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL-II vs. AMARJIT SINGH BAKSHI (HUF)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

condoned the delay in the appeals preferred by the assessee [ITA 577/2008 and ITA 1291/2008] via order dated 01.11.2017. 4. The important aspect is that while the majority view of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] as reflected by perusing the orders dated 22.04.2003 and 24.06.2003, on merits, is in favour of the assessee, the said view

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SAJJAN SINGH, RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Shri Sajjan Singh, Central Circle-17, F-180, C-Scheme, Room No. 103, First Floor, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur, Hall No. 1,Ara Centre, E-2, Pan:Apfps5687B Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

132A was executed to the date of completion of the assessment under section 153A or under Chapter XIV-B. — [Explanation 1].—In this section,— (i) "block period" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (a) of section 158B; (ii) "execution of an authorisation for search or requisition" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in Explanation

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI vs. OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI, DELHI vs. ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Dcit, Central Circle-17, Vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Delhi Gokhley Marg Room No. 244, Ara Lucknow Centre, Jhandewalan Uttar Pradesh-226001 Extension, New Delhi

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that in this case, the assessee filed his original return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 93,64,400/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 18.10.2019 in the case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI vs. ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. M Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Dcit, Central Circle-17, Vs. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Delhi Gokhley Marg Room No. 244, Ara Lucknow Centre, Jhandewalan Uttar Pradesh-226001 Extension, New Delhi

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that in this case, the assessee filed his original return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 93,64,400/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 18.10.2019 in the case

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S MIRAGE HOMES PVT. LTD.

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are

condone the delay in filing as well as the delay in refiling the appeal. 5. The applications are disposed of. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:02.12.2025 11:33:11 Signature Not Verified ITA 686/2025 Page 2 of 5 ITA 686/2025 6. The challenge in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S MIRAGE HOMES PVT. LTD.

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

condone the delay in filing as well as the delay in refiling the appeal. 5. The applications are disposed of. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:02.12.2025 11:33:11 Signature Not Verified ITA 686/2025 Page 2 of 5 ITA 686/2025 6. The challenge in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, DELHI vs. GOLF TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

delay of 286 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. ITA 498/2023 1. This appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 1 ITAT dated 08 July 2020 and in terms of which the Principal Commissioner posits the following questions of law for our This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. BRAJ PAL SINGH, NOIDA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such approval can be brought under judicial

SUDESH CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such approval can be brought under judicial

ANKUR CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such approval can be brought under judicial

SUDESH CHAUDHARY , NOIDA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CERCLE-1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such approval can be brought under judicial

ANKUR CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such approval can be brought under judicial

MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

132A. Section 153D of the Act is for administrative purposes and does not require that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Narayanappa vs. CIT 63 ITR 219 (SC) as to whether such approval is merely an administrative act or whether such 5 ITA No.2409/Del/2015; & ITA Nos.5579/Del/2012, 5560/Del/2012