PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

ZTE CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

DCIT, INT. TAX.,.CIRCLE GURGAON, GURGAON vs. ZTE CORPORATION , CHINA

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

ZTE CORPORATION,CHINA vs. JCIT (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELCO INDIA PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay in filing and in re filing the appeals is condoned. 2. ,The applications stand disposed of. ITA 116/2016 ITA 917/2015 ITA 74/2016 3. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 16 : June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELCO INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay in filing and in re filing the appeals is condoned. 2. ,The applications stand disposed of. ITA 116/2016 ITA 917/2015 ITA 74/2016 3. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 16 : June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter

MADAN LAL BHASKAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(3), FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4416/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Madan Lal Bhaskar, Income Tax Officer, Jeevan Nagar, Sikka Enterprises, Vs. Ward 1(3), Faridabad, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Aejpb6367A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 2. The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 17.05.2024, passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. This case has an unusual set of facts which deserve to be mentioned before we proceed

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

159 nor Section 170 of the Act would save or validate a notice that may be issued in the name of a transferor company which did not exist on the relevant date. It was submitted that the Act itself contemplates a charge of tax being imposed on an entity which is in existence on the date of issuance of notice

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SINGHANIA ALU FOIL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, return of Income was filed on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.13,65,640/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 29.07.2016. The assessment

MAHENDER MALIK,HISAR vs. ITO,WARD -(1), HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

delay of 3 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action assessing the assessee’s interest component

BALVINDER SINGH,KARNAL, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KARNAL, KARNAL ,HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

delay of 283 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities action assessing the assessee’s interest component

SUPREME BUILD CAP P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT, CENTRAL-1, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh

delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. 2. Appellant, Supreme Build Cap P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’), by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the Pr. CIT, New Delhi, qua the assessment year 14-15 on the grounds inter alia that :- “1. That the order of Principal

NARENDER SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO WARD - 2, REWARI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

delay of 159 days in filing the present appeals are condoned. 5. First, we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1576 for AY 2010-11 and consider the facts of the said assessment year. 6. The brief facts of the case are that in this case search was conducted at the premises of Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad

NARENDER SINGH,REWARI vs. ITO WARD - 2, REWARI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

delay of 159 days in filing the present appeals are condoned. 5. First, we take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1576 for AY 2010-11 and consider the facts of the said assessment year. 6. The brief facts of the case are that in this case search was conducted at the premises of Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad

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

MAWASI,HARYANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Delay of 111 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 ITA No. 5020/Del./2025 Mawasi 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness

GANGA BISHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Delay of 1 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 ITA No. 2179/Del./2025 Ganga Bishan 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness