DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153D, it is found that Honhle jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153D, it is found that Honhle jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153D, it is found that Honhle jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153D, it is found that Honhle jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153D, it is found that Honhle jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 153D, it is found that Honhle jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval ITA Nos. 148 to 153/Del/2025 Dileep K. Gupta cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving

SONIA MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

SWATY MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

RAMESHWARAM STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LTD.,CHHATTISGARH vs. DCIT,CC-20, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rameshwaram Steel & Vs The Deputy Power Private Ltd., . Commissioner Of Income 1, Village Bade Guma, Tax, Ghar Ghoda, Raigarh Central Circle-20, Chhattisgarh New Delhi Delhi- 496001 Pan No. Aaccr7462A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153D of the Act. Therefore, in light of such peculiar fact of instant case, it cannot be inferred that the AddI. CIT was not in a position to independently apply his mind in judicial manner to the case of assessee on the same day. 8. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that Hon’ble High Court of Madras

RAMESHWARAM STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LTD.,CHHATTISGARH vs. DCIT, CC-20, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rameshwaram Steel & Vs The Deputy Power Private Ltd., . Commissioner Of Income 1, Village Bade Guma, Tax, Ghar Ghoda, Raigarh Central Circle-20, Chhattisgarh New Delhi Delhi- 496001 Pan No. Aaccr7462A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153D of the Act. Therefore, in light of such peculiar fact of instant case, it cannot be inferred that the AddI. CIT was not in a position to independently apply his mind in judicial manner to the case of assessee on the same day. 8. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that Hon’ble High Court of Madras

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI vs. RAMESHWER DASS, DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 153D, it is found that Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that ITAs No.135 & 136/Del/2021 such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,, DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 153D, it is found that Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required to apply his/her independent

MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 153D, it is found that Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required to apply his/her independent

SAVITA GOYAL,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

section 153D, it is found that Hon’ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case. Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required to apply his/her independent

YASMIN KAPOOR,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 19, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 153D, it is found that Hon'ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case, Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required to apply his/her independent

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 153D, it is found that Hon'ble jurisdictional high court has emphatically held that such an issue is essentially a question of fact and has to be decided based of factual matrix of a particular case, Further, it has been held that approval cannot be reduced to a mechanical exercise and approving authority is required to apply his/her independent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. BRAJ PAL SINGH, NOIDA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities.” 5. It is further submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number

ANKUR CHAUDHARY,NOIDA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities.” 5. It is further submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number