RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication through a single order. 2. The appeal for AY 2018-19 (ITA No.4402) arises from order dated 16.07.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-1, Mumbai. The appeal for AY 2019-20 arises from order dated 22.11.2024, passed

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY 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

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

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

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 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, 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

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

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

1)(c) enabling the Assessing Officer to determine the fee under section 234E was brought into effect from 01-06-2015 and was held to be prospective. Hence, no computation of fee for demand or intimation for fee under section 234E could be made for TDS deducted for respective years / periods prior to 01/06/2015. Accordingly, the assessee is not liable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

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

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

1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire dated 16.05.2019 & 05.09.2019 were issued which remained uncomplied with. A final opportunity of hearing was given through notice under 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

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, we see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

delay in filing of appeal cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time and therefore cannot be condoned" is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi has further erred both in law and on facts by not adjudicating the M/S. Brij Gopal Construction Company

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

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

ITO, WARD-35(7), NEW DELHI vs. SUMITRA DEVI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 & Co. No. 173/Del/2022 Asstt. Year 2010-11 Ito, Ward-35(7), Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi, New Delhi. Plot No. 132/133, First Floor, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110 085. Pan Craps6145R (Appellant) (Respondent)

246)/2005/LSB(R)/6137 dated 4 & CO. No. 173/Del/2022 ITO vs.Smt. Sumitra Devi 12.06.2007 of Delhi Development Authority. At Para 9 (VI) of this letter Sh. Sukhbir Singh appellant's husband was asked to submit legally wedded affidavit on non judicial stamp paper of Rs. 10 attested by magistrate/notary public for inclusion of name of his spouse in the conveyance