THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SRI LANKA CRICKET

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

delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 3. The application stands disposed of. CM(M)-IPD 4/2026 4. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution Digitally Signed By:YASHRAJ Signing Date:29.01.2026 17:29:26 Signature Not Verified CM(M)-IPD 4/2026 Page 2 of 22 of India, 1950 read with Section

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

condoning the delay. Now we are taking up the contentions of both the parties in respect of merits of the case. 10. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee came to be constituted on 03.05.1995 as a Joint Venture Company having two shareholders namely ‘Government of India’ and ‘Government of Delhi’ each having 50% of shareholding. It had been incorporated

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

condoning the delay. Now we are taking up the contentions of both the parties in respect of merits of the case. 10. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee came to be constituted on 03.05.1995 as a Joint Venture Company having two shareholders namely ‘Government of India’ and ‘Government of Delhi’ each having 50% of shareholding. It had been incorporated

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

condoning the delay. Now we are taking up the contentions of both the parties in respect of merits of the case. 10. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee came to be constituted on 03.05.1995 as a Joint Venture Company having two shareholders namely ‘Government of India’ and ‘Government of Delhi’ each having 50% of shareholding. It had been incorporated

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2, NEW DELHI vs. HCL GREAT BRITAIN LTD.

delay of 227 days in filing the captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 21598/2025(exemption) 3. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. ITA 89/2025 5. The learned counsel for the parties’ state that connected appeal being ITA No.65/2025 Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation

LITTLE FAIRY LIMITED ,NICOSIA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshlittle Fairy Ltd, Vs. Acit, Office 601, 6Th Floor, Circle- Anastasio Building, 15, International Tax- Dimitriou Karatasou, 2(2)(1), Strovolos 2024, Nicosia, New Delhi Foreign Cyprus (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccl1478L Assessee By : Shri J. Srivastav, Adv Shri Karav Malhotra, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/05/2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- “1. That on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the terms of the DTAA with Cyprus in the correct perspective 1.1 That on facts

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

227 of the Constitution of India. Contesting the correctness of the notice u/s. 148 of I.T. 'Act, 1961 & resultant reopening of assessment before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not the remedy permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise also had there been such a remedy in the statute, the Hon'ble Apex Court would not have provided

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

227 of the Constitution of India. Contesting the correctness of the notice u/s. 148 of I.T. 'Act, 1961 & resultant reopening of assessment before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not the remedy permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise also had there been such a remedy in the statute, the Hon'ble Apex Court would not have provided

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

227 of the Constitution of India. Contesting the correctness of the notice u/s. 148 of I.T. 'Act, 1961 & resultant reopening of assessment before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not the remedy permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise also had there been such a remedy in the statute, the Hon'ble Apex Court would not have provided

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

227 of the Constitution of India. Contesting the correctness of the notice u/s. 148 of I.T. 'Act, 1961 & resultant reopening of assessment before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not the remedy permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise also had there been such a remedy in the statute, the Hon'ble Apex Court would not have provided

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

227 of the Constitution of India. Contesting the correctness of the notice u/s. 148 of I.T. 'Act, 1961 & resultant reopening of assessment before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not the remedy permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise also had there been such a remedy in the statute, the Hon'ble Apex Court would not have provided

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

227 of the Constitution of India. Contesting the correctness of the notice u/s. 148 of I.T. 'Act, 1961 & resultant reopening of assessment before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not the remedy permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise also had there been such a remedy in the statute, the Hon'ble Apex Court would not have provided

PAWAN KUMAR HUF,DAYANAND NAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORESHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay is condoned in filing the appeal, hence. the appeal is admitted for hearing on merit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act was initiated on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv) Unit-6(3), New Delhi vide dated 12-03-2021 that the assessee Pawan Kumar

SEEMA SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF SANJAY SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-58(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6148/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Late Sh. Sanjay Singh Through L/H Vs Income Tax Officer, Smt. Seema Singh, Ward-58(1), C-10, 4Th Floor, Guru Ram Dass New Delhi-110002 Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bgops2752L Assessee By: Sh. Kamlesh Chaurasiya, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

condone delay of 227 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal instituted on 04.12.2023 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 22.03.2023 2 Late Sanjay Singh L/H Seem Singh thereby holding that the same had not been explained in light of justifiable reasons. 4. Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee

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

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 of the Revenue in ITA No. 1074/Del/2012 and cross objection of the assessee in CO No. 133/Del/2012 for assessment year 2003-04. The grounds raised in 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

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 of the Revenue in ITA No. 1074/Del/2012 and cross objection of the assessee in CO No. 133/Del/2012 for assessment year 2003-04. The grounds raised in the appeal