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

Section 153C and 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the “assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted.” 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 1265) and of Hon’ble High

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

Section 153C and 153A have same meaning and have to be calculated from the “assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted.” 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jasjit Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 1265) and of Hon’ble High

SRS PANCHRATAN DIAMONDS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. The first identical issue involved in this appeal is challenging the 3. validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C

SRS PANCHRATAN DIAMONDS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. The first identical issue involved in this appeal is challenging the 3. validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C

WACHOVIA MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Vide Ground No.1 Assessee is challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 8. The AO in the assessment order has noted that information was received from ADIT (Inv.) which was forwarded to PCIT and through him to the AO according to which a search and seizure action was carried

ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. JAY DEE SECURITIES & FINANCE LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Aggarwal & Shri Amit Shukla

delay should be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be heard on merits. 5. Since in the assessee’s appeal for the impugned assessment years, a fundamental issue of jurisdiction has been raised, therefore, we are first taking up assessee’s appeal first for adjudication. The main ground which has been raised in all the appeals which goes

NITIN GUPTA HUF,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -32, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4120/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4121/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nitin Gupta Huf, Vs Acit, Bt-54, Shalimar Bagh, Central Circle-32, Delhi-110088 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafhn6836G Assessee By : Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

delay in filing of the assessee’s twin lower appeals for want of justifiable explanation. Learned CIT-DR communication gaps etc. could not be altogether ruled out. We thus quote Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the same. 4. It next emerges that we hardly need to delve with the relevant factual

NITIN GUPTA HUF,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -32, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4120/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4121/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nitin Gupta Huf, Vs Acit, Bt-54, Shalimar Bagh, Central Circle-32, Delhi-110088 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafhn6836G Assessee By : Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

delay in filing of the assessee’s twin lower appeals for want of justifiable explanation. Learned CIT-DR communication gaps etc. could not be altogether ruled out. We thus quote Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) to condone the same. 4. It next emerges that we hardly need to delve with the relevant factual

ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. PRAMADITYA, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs Pramaditya, Cc-14, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E Co No.29/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramaditya, Vs. Acit, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, Cc-14, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E

153C of the Act. Hence the grounds raised by the assessee in his cross objections are allowed. ITA No. 1861/Del/2021 – A.Y. 2017-18 – Revenue Appeal 4. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made

KAVITA CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

condone the delay. 6. The brief fact leading to the case is this that on 30.09.2015 a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of the Airwell Group, involved in the development of housing and commercial projects. Upon centralization of the case with AO under Section

KAVITA CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

condone the delay. 6. The brief fact leading to the case is this that on 30.09.2015 a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of the Airwell Group, involved in the development of housing and commercial projects. Upon centralization of the case with AO under Section

KAVITA CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

condone the delay. 6. The brief fact leading to the case is this that on 30.09.2015 a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of the Airwell Group, involved in the development of housing and commercial projects. Upon centralization of the case with AO under Section

KIRAN WATI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

In the result all appeals preferred by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandraita Nos. 350, 351 & 352/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Smt. Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Dcit, Central Circle B-30, Gamma-1, G.B. Noida Nagar, Greater Noida 201308 Pan No. Anhpk 4047 R Appellant Respondent

condone the delay. 6. The brief fact leading to the case is this that on 30.09.2015 a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of the Airwell Group, involved in the development of housing and commercial projects. Upon centralization of the case with AO under Section

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. AMOL AWASTHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

delay of 37 days in filing the captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 98/2025 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.1343/Del/2024 [the impugned order]. The impugned

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. AMOL AWASTHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

delay of 37 days in filing the captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 99/2025 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] impugning an order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.1342/Del/2024 [the impugned order]. The impugned