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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Assessment Years („AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1 vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Assessment Years („AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Asses AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Assessment Years („AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2003-04 Marks Consolidated Vs. Ito, Ward 6(2), Business Ltd., New Delhi 1497, Bhardwaj Bhawan, Wazir Nagar, Kotla , New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm8113H)

condone the delay in dispute and admit the appeal for adjudication and proceeded to decide the ground no. 1 and 2, argued by the Ld. AR for the assessee. The case laws cited by the Ld. AR are applicable being on identical facts and circumstances. However, the case laws cited by the Ld. DR are distinguished on facts

SANGEETA SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-5(3)(3), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR, NOIDA, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144 of the Act dated 24.09.2019, but of no use. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO assessed total income of assessee at Rs.94,60,050/- vide order dated 24.12.2019. 3. Against order dated 24.12.2019, appellant/assessee filed application for condonation of 246 days in filing appeal and appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which were dismissed vide order dated

ABHISHEK MALHOTRA ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-73(1), DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee are disposed off and the Appeal filed by the assessee

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Page 3 of 10 Abhishek Malhotra vs. AO 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a practicing advocate and filed TDS returns belatedly for various quarters in Financial Year 2013-14 & 2014-15. The CPC, Bangalore, issued intimations charging late

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

delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 33,28,230 289,07,016 3,28,246 [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] 5. Disallowance of interest 32,58,548 81,98,798 1,02,95,292 [GOA No. 5] [GOA No. 5] - Deemed dividend

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

delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 33,28,230 289,07,016 3,28,246 [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] 5. Disallowance of interest 32,58,548 81,98,798 1,02,95,292 [GOA No. 5] [GOA No. 5] - Deemed dividend

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

delayed payment, as 7,48,856 per working in seized documents [GOA No. 3] 4. Disallowance U/s 14A r.w.r. 8D 33,28,230 289,07,016 3,28,246 [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] [GOA No. 4] 5. Disallowance of interest 32,58,548 81,98,798 1,02,95,292 [GOA No. 5] [GOA No. 5] - Deemed dividend

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

delay is condoned and cross objections are taken up for adjudication on merits prior to the appeal as the same have raised pure questions of law. 6. Ground no. 1 of Cross Objections; It can be observed that following are the relevant dates and sequence of events which are canvassed by Ld Sr. Counsel for the assessee : 1st 17.12.2009 Assessment

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2014-15

246 of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1) Ghaziabad, relating to the Assessment Year 2014-15 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on 29-12-2017 which was served on assesses on 31-12-2017 and it was handed over to us. Though this appeal

KM. PREETI SINGH,MEERUT vs. ITO, NOIDA

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. Page 2 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014. Km. Preeti Singh. (3) The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny, through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) to examine the source of investment made in immovable property. The Assessee did not participate

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-28(5), DELHI vs. RAJENDER, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajender, Ward 28(5), Room No. 1202, 448, Chauhan Mohalla, Block E, Civic Centre, Vs Madanpura Khadar, Sarita Delhi 110002 Vihar, Delhi - 110076 Pan- Avqpr9368B Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 30.04.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10229136 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 20.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 Of The Act.

246/- by making following additions: 1. Unsecured loan of Rs. 1.00 crores given to Nitco Technology as unexplained Investment u/s.69 of the Act and provision of section 115BBE of the Act are invoked; 2. Time deposit of Rs. 1,01,68,750/- with Punjab and Sindh Bank as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and provision of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GITWAKO FARMS (I) P.LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

delay in refiling the appeal is condoned subject to ITA No740/2010 Page 2 of 16 payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITR No.740/2009 1. Notice. Mr.Yadav enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 2. Heard the counsel for the parties. The present appeal