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

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

149, 151 and 153.\n8.2 Having noticed the above, we may also refer to the second and the third\nproviso to section 153A(1). For the sake of convenience, the second and\nthird proviso to section 153A(1) of the said Act which is relevant is\nreproduced below and reads thus:\nProvided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating

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)

B of the Act. Section 201 (3) of the Act provides for time limit for passing of order under section 201(1) of the Act for deeming a payer as assessee in default for failure to deduct tax from payments made to a resident. Clause 201(3) of the Act provides that no order under section 201(1

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

149, 154 and 155, and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, the provisions of the fourth proviso shall apply accordingly.] Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

149, 154 and 155, and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, the provisions of the fourth proviso shall apply accordingly.] Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

149, 154 and 155, and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, the provisions of the fourth proviso shall apply accordingly.] Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the\nintimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is\npending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are\nrejected.\"\nPage | 12\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\n9. However, what is material is that

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

delay is condoned.\n\n4. The Revenue in its appeal challenged the order of the\nLd.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act and\nthe assessee in its cross objection challenged the validity of\n2\n\nI.T.A. No. 4651/Del/2018 & CO No.74/Del/2023\nreopening of assessment on the ground that notice u/s 148 of the\nAct

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , [CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7588 : (2015) 370 ITR 288] , [CIT v. Chanakaya Exports

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. SUNCITY INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 149 (1) (b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below: Assessment Within 3 Expiry Within Six Expiry of Year (1

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

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a private limited company who filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 129603/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010 the ld Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are complexity in the accounts of the assessee and in the interest of revenue its books

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

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

1) of new section 149 of the Act. since they are within the period\nof three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Specified\nauthority under section 151 of the new law in this case shall be the\nauthority prescribed under clause (i) of that section.\n7.0 Cases where the Assessing Officer is required to provide the information

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TRAVELPORT LP

Bench: The Itat Was Preferred By The Respondent/Assessee Against Order Dated 21.06.2019 Framed Under Sections 144C(13) Read With Section 147, 143(3) Of The Act. 3. The Tribunal Allowed The Appeal Of The Respondent By Stating In Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 24 As Under: “19. Facts Of The Case In Hand Show That No Order Has Been' Signed By:Pradeep Sharma Signing Date:16.09.2025 11:42:21 Signature Not Verified

b) of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot pass a draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act. Keeping in view the principle of law propounded in the aforesaid Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:16.09.2025 11:42:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 334/2025 Page 11 of 14 judicial precedents, we have no hesitation in holding that the draft