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. Thus, the Ld. Assessee's Shivani Tayal Vs. ITO Representative also submitted that the issue involved in the present Appeal on its merit is fully covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) 1667 70 (S.C). 6. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further submitted

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

149 subject to provision to section 150(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said direction made by the ld CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee has preferred appeals by challenging the direction issued by the ld CIT(A) issued u/s 150(1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019

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

149 subject to provision to section 150(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said direction made by the ld CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee has preferred appeals by challenging the direction issued by the ld CIT(A) issued u/s 150(1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019

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

149 subject to provision to section 150(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said direction made by the ld CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee has preferred appeals by challenging the direction issued by the ld CIT(A) issued u/s 150(1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

149) and MadhuDadha (Madras 317 ITR 458) it has been held that party has to show reason for delay on the last date of limitation period and thereafter for each day. Further, condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Court has to exercise the discretionary Jurisdiction. 6 Whether the inordinate delay was not due to negligence and inaction

KIRAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-43(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice list of relevant dates for consideration which are reproduced below :- “1. Short list of dates :- a) 27.10.2016: Return of Rs.12,06,910/- was filed having acknowledgement no.521868320271016. b) 01.06.2021: Notice u/s 148 under

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

delay in filing of appeal before CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) may kindly be condoned and the appeal be directed to be decided on merits or alternatively should be restored back to the Assessing officer (A0) as the assessment order has been passed under section 144 of the Act. 3. The CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

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

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

RAJBIR SINGH,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Rajbir Singh Vs. Acit 1625A, The Magnolia, Dlf Central Circle-19, City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Khandewalan, Haryana New Delhi Pan: Aaups2176H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 Order

delay of 09 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) has been obtained from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, and should have 2 Rajbir Singh Vs. ACIT been obtained from PCIT

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Krishna Kumar Makrania 4. The assessee before us, mainly challenged the assessment proceedings on this particular count that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act have not been issued and served upon the assessee and the reassessment proceedings finalized u/s. 148 of the Act, is therefore, held to be invalid. 5. The brief

MOHD. ALAM QUERSHI,MORADABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalmohd. Alam Quershi, Income Tax Officer, 0, Gol Kothi, Depduty Ganj, Ward-1(1), Moradabad-244001, Vs. Moradabad. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aadpq4002B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Ca & Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.11.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 17.02.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10282979 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Dated 19.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received That There Were Larger Credits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee & There Is Mismatch In The Income Declared By The Assessee & Credits In The Bank Account & Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 06.04.2021. Mohd. Alam Qureshi Vs. Ito Thereafter, In Terms Of The Order Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Union Of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal & Ors. In Civil Appeal No. 3005/2002, The Said Notice Was Treated As Notice U/S 148A(2) Of The Act. After Passing The Order U/S 148A(D) Of The Act, A Fresh Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 29.07.2022. In Response, The Assessee Filed The Return On 28.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,90,230/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B At An Income Of Rs. 58,64,382/- By Making Addition Of Rs. 54,74,132/-.

condoned the delay in the instant appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 6. Before us, ld. AR for the assessee submits that first notice for reopening u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 06.04.2021 and thereafter in terms of the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI vs. KOLAHAI INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED , NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Kolahai, Infotech Private Limited Ward-14(3) , Room 129, First Floor Transport Centre No.305 Cr Building I.P. Punjabi Bagh New Delhi, Delhi- Estate New Delhi -110002 110034

section 149(1)(b) of the Act, and time limit is 31-03-2026 as per the new regime. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned proceedings is barred by limitation in view of the judgment dated 03-10-2024 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of union Of India and others vs. Rajeev

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. PREM CHAND PRAVESH KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Vs. Prem Chand Pravesh New Delhi Kumar, (Through Erstwhile Partner Sanchit Garg), 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, Delhi- 110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfp9925A Co No. 120/Del/2025 (In Ita No. 736/Del/2025) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Prem Chand Pravesh Vs. Acit, Kumar, (Through New Delhi Erstwhile Partner Sanchit Garg), 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, Delhi- 110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfp9925A Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Adv Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Ms. Ishika Dua, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025

condone the delay and admit the Cross Objection of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, wherein, it has been pleaded that the notice u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. This goes to root the matter and hence

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone delay under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 19 are matters of procedure and act retrospectively, so as to cover causes of action which arose under FERA. " 13.5 At this stage, decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Yew Bon Tew (supra) is required to be referred to and considered

BASUDEO SONI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 35(1) , NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4894/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Basudeo Soni, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Ward-35(1), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agyps4983N Assessee By: Sh. Saantanu Jain, Adv. & Ms. Jahanvi Khanna, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025

Delay of 103 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2 Basudeo Soni 4. It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of section 148 proceedings herein between the parties

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -01 vs. M/S. C.S. LEASING PVT. LTD.

delay is condoned. 4. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 492/2022 5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”]. 6. The broad facts, which are required to be noticed for adjudication of the appeal, are as follows: Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date