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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that in this case, the assessee filed his original return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 93,64,400/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 18.10.2019 in the case

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, facts are that in this case, the assessee filed his original return of income on 19.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 93,64,400/-. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 18.10.2019 in the case

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

condonation of delay and the appeal prior to amendments also did not make the imposition of late fees by Section 234 E to be ultra vires.” 12. The findings of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has also escaped the consideration by Hon’ble ITAT. She accordingly requested that the same may kindly be considered to avoid any miscarriage of justice

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi assumed u/s 263 of the 7 Uday Kumar Vaish Act. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts

DAULAT RAM,REWARI vs. ITO, REWARI (JAO), REWARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Daulat Ram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Anu Jain & Co., First Rewari (Jao) Floor, Near Palika Complex, Model Town, Rewari Pan: Avppr6711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Monoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Delay of 339 days in filing the asseessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and 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

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

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

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

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

SHASTRI LAL,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

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. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. It emerges that this tribunal’s recent decision in Pawan Kumar Vs. PCIT

NITIN KUMAR,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

delayed of 161 days in filing appeal is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. The sole ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,07,526/- being 50% of interest on enhance compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

161 ITD 313) dated 23.09.2016 and Maharashtra Cricket Association v. DCIT [ITA No.560/PN/2016] dated 21.09.2016 and hence, the late fee u/s 234E levied in the instant case ought to have been deleted. 2. The learned DCIT erred in not appreciating that the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the Intimation u/s 200A was contrary to the law laid down

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

161 ITD 313) dated 23.09.2016 and Maharashtra Cricket Association v. DCIT [ITA No.560/PN/2016] dated 21.09.2016 and hence, the late fee u/s 234E levied in the instant case ought to have been deleted. 2. The learned DCIT erred in not appreciating that the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the Intimation u/s 200A was contrary to the law laid down

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

161 ITD 313) dated 23.09.2016 and Maharashtra Cricket Association v. DCIT [ITA No.560/PN/2016] dated 21.09.2016 and hence, the late fee u/s 234E levied in the instant case ought to have been deleted. 2. The learned DCIT erred in not appreciating that the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the Intimation u/s 200A was contrary to the law laid down

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

161 ITD 313) dated 23.09.2016 and Maharashtra Cricket Association v. DCIT [ITA No.560/PN/2016] dated 21.09.2016 and hence, the late fee u/s 234E levied in the instant case ought to have been deleted. 2. The learned DCIT erred in not appreciating that the levy of late fee u/s 234E in the Intimation u/s 200A was contrary to the law laid down

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIPIN KAPUR, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

161\ntaxmann.com 1063 (Raipur - Trib.), Asstt. CIT Central Circle-2(1) v. M/s\nGM Modular Pvt. Ltd.. ITA Nos.3033 to 3038/MUM/2022 order dated\n31/05/2023 and Income-tax Officer v. Parmanand Gupta [2023] 156\ntaxmann.com 551 (Raipur -Trib.) allowed the assessee to raise a ground of\nappeal which is jurisdictional in nature and goes to the root of the matter

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (EARLIER KNOWN AS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE), DELHI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Circle-19(1), Know As Oriental Bank Of Delhi Commerce), Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, Delhi Pan: Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishana, Ca Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr)

Delay of 458 days in filing of the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case

SHILA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 23(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Royshila Builders & Vs. Ito, Ward 23(2) Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Flat No. 50, Aakshardham Apptt., Pocket-3, Dwarka Sector- 19, New Delhi-110075 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics0470K Appellant .. Respondent

delay is hereby condoned. The appeal is, therefore, admitted. 5. The assessee has raised additional ground of appeal challenging the initiation of proceeding under Section 147 of the Act and further completion of assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act as without satisfying the statutory pre-condition envisaged in the above section and without jurisdiction and, therefore