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

14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance

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

14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA.] [(14-B) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of issuance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 3. At the outset cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation. In the petition for condonation of delay

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 3. At the outset cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation. In the petition for condonation of delay

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 read with clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962.” 3. At the outset cross objections filed by the assessee are barred by limitation. In the petition for condonation of delay

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PTC INDIA LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condoned.\nPage | 2\nITA No.961/Del/2023 &\n3225/Del/2024\n4. Considering the submissions made by the AO, the delay is\ncondoned and the appeal of the Revenue is admitted to decide on\nmerits.\nITA No.961/Del/2023 [Assessment Year : 2018-19]\n[Assessee's appeal]\n5. First, we take the appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo.961/Del/2023 [Assessment Year 2018-19] wherein assessee\nraised following

PTC INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ptc India Ltd. Vs Dcit 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Circle-19(1), Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Ptc India Ltd. Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Respondent By Shri D S Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

2. The appeal of the Revenue is delayed by 461 days. Alongwith appeal memo, a petition is filed for condonation of delay wherein it is stated that due to high pendency of time barring matters, the appeal could not be filed in time. As the delay is Bonafide, it is submitted by the AO that the approval was taken from

M/S. GARDEN VIEW FOODS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ptc India Ltd. Vs Dcit 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Circle-19(1), Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit Vs Ptc India Ltd. Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, Delhi Bhikaji Cama Place, 15, R.K.Puram (Main), New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcp7947F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv Respondent By Shri D S Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

2. The appeal of the Revenue is delayed by 461 days. Alongwith appeal memo, a petition is filed for condonation of delay wherein it is stated that due to high pendency of time barring matters, the appeal could not be filed in time. As the delay is Bonafide, it is submitted by the AO that the approval was taken from

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

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

2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. Accordingly, all the applications stand disposed of . CM APPL. 48108/2019 in ITA 936/2019 (exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. Application stands disposed of. ITA 930/2019, ITA 936/2019 & ITA 952/2019 6. The present three ITAs bearing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

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

2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. Accordingly, all the applications stand disposed of . CM APPL. 48108/2019 in ITA 936/2019 (exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. Application stands disposed of. ITA 930/2019, ITA 936/2019 & ITA 952/2019 6. The present three ITAs bearing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

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

2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeals is condoned. 3. Accordingly, all the applications stand disposed of . CM APPL. 48108/2019 in ITA 936/2019 (exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. Application stands disposed of. ITA 930/2019, ITA 936/2019 & ITA 952/2019 6. The present three ITAs bearing

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU, NEW DLEHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

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

2 of 5 4. By this application, the Appellant seeks condonation of delay 24 days in filing the appeal. Considering the extent of delay, counsel for the Respondent fairly does not oppose the application. The same is allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 172/2020 6. The Revenue has preferred

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. VEDANTA LIMITED.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

delay is condoned. ITA 1467/2018 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short ‘Act’) in the case of Vedanta Ltd (Formerly known as Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd.) relates to the assessment year 2010-2011 and arises from the order dated 10th April, 2018 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI 1 vs. M/S AMADEUS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Appeal is dismissed being covered

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

delay of 18 days in filing and 17 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:15.10.2025 12:58:54 Signature Not Verified ITA 511/2025 Page 2 of 12 ITA 511/2025 3. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) lays a challenge