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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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