ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JMSW INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 253(4) of the Act. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the objections of the Revenue on the issue of no letter of condonation of the delay by the assessee and accordingly request for dismissal of cross objections is rejected. ITA No. 1074/Del/2012 for AY: 2003-04 10. Now we take up the appeal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JMSW INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

section 253(4) of the Act. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the objections of the Revenue on the issue of no letter of condonation of the delay by the assessee and accordingly request for dismissal of cross objections is rejected. ITA No. 1074/Del/2012 for AY: 2003-04 10. Now we take up the appeal

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

153C read with section 144, making addition of Rs. 1,82,53,79,696.  The final assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A), which allowed the appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 26.02.2015.  The order dated 26.02.2015 was assailed by the Revenue before the ITAT on merits and the assessee also filed Cross Objections being

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

153C read with section 144, making addition of Rs. 1,82,53,79,696.  The final assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A), which allowed the appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 26.02.2015.  The order dated 26.02.2015 was assailed by the Revenue before the ITAT on merits and the assessee also filed Cross Objections being

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

153C read with section 144, making addition of Rs. 1,82,53,79,696.  The final assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A), which allowed the appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 26.02.2015.  The order dated 26.02.2015 was assailed by the Revenue before the ITAT on merits and the assessee also filed Cross Objections being

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

1) dated 28.04.2025, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) identical lower appellate discussion has refused to condone 29 days delay in filing of the assessee

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

1) dated 28.04.2025, in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) identical lower appellate discussion has refused to condone 29 days delay in filing of the assessee

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 of the Act by the Learned AO. Since this goes to the root of the matter, we deem it fit and appropriate to address the same. We have

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 of the Act by the Learned AO. Since this goes to the root of the matter, we deem it fit and appropriate to address the same. We have

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

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, 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 in the sum of Rs 1

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

1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019. 4 ITA. Nos. 1557 & 1558/Del/2019 & ITA. No. 2829/Del/2019 M/s. Opal Buildwell, New Delhi. ITA No. 2829/Del/2019 (AY 2009-10) (Revenue) 8. There was of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. In the application for condonation of delay the revenue pleaded the assessment file

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

1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019. 4 ITA. Nos. 1557 & 1558/Del/2019 & ITA. No. 2829/Del/2019 M/s. Opal Buildwell, New Delhi. ITA No. 2829/Del/2019 (AY 2009-10) (Revenue) 8. There was of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. In the application for condonation of delay the revenue pleaded the assessment file

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

1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019. 4 ITA. Nos. 1557 & 1558/Del/2019 & ITA. No. 2829/Del/2019 M/s. Opal Buildwell, New Delhi. ITA No. 2829/Del/2019 (AY 2009-10) (Revenue) 8. There was of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. In the application for condonation of delay the revenue pleaded the assessment file

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

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