PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

delay confirmation of provisional attachments while claiming protection under the Covid extension orders, thereby allowing attachments to remain in force far longer than 18 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5398 19 2022 SCC OnLine SC 980 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:25.09.2025 14:40:47 Signature Not Verified LPA 362/2020 & W.P.(CRL) 86/2022 Page 12 of 53 Parliament

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

145(2) of the Act according to which the stock can be valued at cost or at net realizable value, whichever is lower. The AO ignored the fact that accounting has been done, as per the regular accounting system followed by the assessee and there was no question of adopting average purchase price for valuation of the closing stock

CONPLEX TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

section 145(3) of the Act; sustaining disallowance of losses claimed as also addition of Rs. 32,43,285/- to the income of the assessee and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Registry noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is late by 121 days. The assessee filed an application dated 14.03.2018 for condonation

MOHD GULZAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 63(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual having income from business and filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.8,04,680/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO rejected books of account of the assessee and estimated

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

M/S. BHARTI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

delay in the appeals is condoned. 4. Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order under consideration submitted that the assessee who is found mentioned at Sl. No.-17 in the list of companies where Konichiva Builders Ltd. is found mentioned in Sl. No.-1. It was submitted that the Tribunal in Konichiva Builders Ltd. restored the issue of allowance

M/S. BHARTI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

delay in the appeals is condoned. 4. Ld. AR inviting attention to the assessment order under consideration submitted that the assessee who is found mentioned at Sl. No.-17 in the list of companies where Konichiva Builders Ltd. is found mentioned in Sl. No.-1. It was submitted that the Tribunal in Konichiva Builders Ltd. restored the issue of allowance

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

145 of 2011 is concerned the following questions of law were framed for consideration: 1. Whether in the circumstances of the instant case and on the ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 27 of 71 basis of the material available on record, the total income adopted at Rs.25,12,68,08 was valid and in accordance with the provisions of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

145 of 2011 is concerned the following questions of law were framed for consideration: 1. Whether in the circumstances of the instant case and on the ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 27 of 71 basis of the material available on record, the total income adopted at Rs.25,12,68,08 was valid and in accordance with the provisions of Section

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

145 of 2011 is concerned the following questions of law were framed for consideration: 1. Whether in the circumstances of the instant case and on the 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 27 of 71 basis of the material available on record, the total income adopted at Rs.25,12,68,08 was valid and in accordance with

M/S. SUPERBRANDS LIMITED (UK),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

145 days, 21 days and 46 days respectively. 5. The contents of the application for condonation of delay have been duly considered and since the ld. DR has not raised any strong objection against the condonation of delay and finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeals on or before

SUPER BRANDS LTD (UK),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

145 days, 21 days and 46 days respectively. 5. The contents of the application for condonation of delay have been duly considered and since the ld. DR has not raised any strong objection against the condonation of delay and finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeals on or before

INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)- 2 vs. M/S HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

delay is condoned and the applications stand disposed of. 1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 22 ITA 620/2019 and ITA 622/2019 nd 2. Since both the present appeals arise out of a common impugned order and raise identical questions of law, the same are being decided vide this common order. May, 2018 passed

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

SINGLA APPARELS PVT LTD ,GANDHI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same for hearing. 6. Both appeals have common and identical issues therefore, both appeals are adjudicated by a common order for the sake of convenience. 7. First we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18]. ITA No.3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18] 8. Brief

SINGLA APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito House No.17, Street No.2, Ward Shankar Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, C.R. Building, Ito Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051. I.P.Estate Pan-Aajcs3628L New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2017-18] Singla Apparels Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito 7244, Mahavir Gali Ward Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-1100531. C.R. Building, Ito Pan-Aajcs3628L I.P.Estate New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Utkarsa Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dt.11.06.2024 & 12.08.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-8/10554/2019-20 & In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10058210 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Penalty

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admitted the same for hearing. 6. Both appeals have common and identical issues therefore, both appeals are adjudicated by a common order for the sake of convenience. 7. First we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18]. ITA No.3445/Del/2024 [Assessment Year 2017-18] 8. Brief