AJIT BATRA,DELHI vs. ITO, CIVIC CENTER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18] Ajit Batra, Vs. Ito Shop No.9 Bhagwan Nagar, Civic Center New Delhi South Delhi- 110014 Pan No.Ahlpb5923H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naman Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

condone the delay. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of selling pharmaceutical products. The assessee filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 23.9.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.4,44,70,210. The case was selected for scrutiny for the purpose of verification of “large value of cash deposits during demonetisation

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

160 ITD 162 (Delhi)] wherein the department filed cross appeal after a delay of 7 years, it was held as under : “There is at best an indication that the appeal is filed now because of the possibility of damage to the revenue's cause in the other assessment years, but then such a factor, in our considered view, cannot

M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

160 ITD 162 (Delhi)] wherein the department filed cross appeal after a delay of 7 years, it was held as under : “There is at best an indication that the appeal is filed now because of the possibility of damage to the revenue's cause in the other assessment years, but then such a factor, in our considered view, cannot

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

160 ITD 162 (Delhi)] wherein the department filed cross appeal after a delay of 7 years, it was held as under : “There is at best an indication that the appeal is filed now because of the possibility of damage to the revenue's cause in the other assessment years, but then such a factor, in our considered view, cannot

HARISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

160/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the A.O. reopened the assessment on the basis of AIR information that the assessee sold immovable property of Rs.30 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the requisite details as asked by the A.O. The A.O. noted that assessee has sold the immovable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs. M/S CSG INTERNATIONAL LTD .

160 days in re- filing the appeal. 3. Counsel for the respondent/assessee says that he would have no objection if the delay is condoned. 4. For the reasons given in the application and the stand taken by the counsel for the respondent/assessee, the delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date

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

160,41,570 [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 2] 2. Addition U/s 68 17,65,000 [GOA No. 2] ~ — 3. Interest for delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r

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

160,41,570 [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 2] 2. Addition U/s 68 17,65,000 [GOA No. 2] ~ — 3. Interest for delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r

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

160,41,570 [GOA No. 1] [GOA No. 2] 2. Addition U/s 68 17,65,000 [GOA No. 2] ~ — 3. Interest for delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrabharti Airtel Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 16, Udyogvihar, Tax, Tds Circle, 6Th Floor, Phase-Iv, Gurugram, Vanijayanikunj, Hsiidc, Haryana-122015 Building Udyogvihar, Phase-V, Pan: Aaacb2894G Near Shankar Chowk, Haryana Gurugram, Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv, Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv & Shivam Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Diyainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025 Order

delay in filing the present Appeal is condoned. 5. The Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that the solitary issue involved in the present Appeal is regarding the applicability of Section 194H of the Act on the amount of discount offered on sale of pre-paid products, being, right to use airtime for a specified value given by the Assessee

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

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80 IA deduction in issue reading as under: "6. Considering the submissions made by the appellant in connection with the delay in filing of appeal, the delay is condoned and the appeal is decided on the merits as follows. The appellant has filed an appeal on account of disallowance u/s 80 IA while processing

MOHIT SUKHIJA,NEW DELHI vs. NFA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalmohit Sukhija, Nfa, 7D, Pocket A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 Vs. Pan: Andps5089H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Department By Sh.Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 29.08.2023 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10164171 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 343 Days. For The Delay, Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Wherein It Is Stated That Assessee Was Out Of Country When The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Passed & Served Through E-Filing Portal. Therefore, He Was Not Aware About The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & The Appeal Could Not Be Filed In Time. He Also Filed The Copy Of The Passport Having Visa & Details Of Travelling Outside India, In Support Of The Claim That He Was Out Of India During The Period When The Order Was Served Upon Him. He Further Stated That As Soon He Returned To India & Came To Know About The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Immediately He Filed The Appeal & Therefore, Prayed For The Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal.

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and e-filed his return of income on 24.08.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,18,960/-. The said return was revised on 29.12.2017 wherein the total income was revised at Rs.3,18,750/-. The AO had information that

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI vs. HCL INFOTECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay is condoned. 3. The application is allowed. CM APPL. 3574/2026 (Exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. The application stands disposed of. ITA 26/2026 6. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 15.09.2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “B”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟), whereby the Tribunal

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the assessee case are that, the assessee filed return declared income of RS. 2,74,730/- which has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued. The case

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of. ITA 105/2023 5. We have heard Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:03.04.2023 16:55:23 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2023:DHC:2330-DB ITA No.105/2023 Page 2 of 10 5.1 Mr Rai says

MOHYAL HOUSING AND WELFARE ASSOCIATION ,GURGAON vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 2193/Del/2024 (A.Y 2022-23)

Section 11, then it learnt that rejection has been passed." 7. In view of the above, it is essential that before any action is taken, a communication of the notice must be in terms of the provisions as enumerated here in above. The provisions do not mention of communication to be "presumed" by placing notice on the e-portal