DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short). Two substantial 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 2 of 22 questions of law were framed by this Court on 21.11.2011 in ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010 and 775/2010, which are as follows: - “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short). Two substantial 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 2 of 22 questions of law were framed by this Court on 21.11.2011 in ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010 and 775/2010, which are as follows: - “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred

HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of

condonation of delay is concerned, he submits that this Court has been adopting a liberal approach on the ground that the procedure is handmaid of justice and the Court must always promote the cause of substantial justice. COURT’S REASONING 14. He lastly submits that the scope of Sections 254(2) and 260A

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

260A of the Act are directed against an order dated 9th April 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 4181/Del/98 and 5100/Del/98 for AY 1994-95. While ITA No. 145 of 2001 is by the Revenue, ITA No. 180 of 2001 is by the Assessee, INC, a political party registered as such under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

260A of the Act are directed against an order dated 9th April 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 4181/Del/98 and 5100/Del/98 for AY 1994-95. While ITA No. 145 of 2001 is by the Revenue, ITA No. 180 of 2001 is by the Assessee, INC, a political party registered as such under Section

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

260A of the Act are directed against an order dated 9th April 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 4181/Del/98 and 5100/Del/98 for AY 1994-95. While ITA No. 145 of 2001 is by the Revenue, ITA No. 180 of 2001 is by the Assessee, INC, a political party registered as such under Section

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal - Assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order, until it was confronted with auction notices in June, 2008, issued by competent

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal - Assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order, until it was confronted with auction notices in June, 2008, issued by competent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

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

condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 2 of 46 ITA 304/2025 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2, New Delhi under Section 260A of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT including the CIT (Judicial)? 2. The question assumes significance in light of the stand of the Revenue that unless the 'jurisdictional' CIT receives a certified copy of the order

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT including the CIT (Judicial)? 2. The question assumes significance in light of the stand of the Revenue that unless the 'jurisdictional' CIT receives a certified copy of the order

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT including the CIT (Judicial)? 2. The question assumes significance in light of the stand of the Revenue that unless the 'jurisdictional' CIT receives a certified copy of the order

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT including the CIT (Judicial)? 2. The question assumes significance in light of the stand of the Revenue that unless the 'jurisdictional' CIT receives a certified copy of the order

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

260A by the Delhi High Court on 9 January 2018 following its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. That has given rise to the present appeal. 17. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that: (i) The High Court was not justified in quashing the final assessment order under

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

260A by the Delhi High Court on 9 January 2018 following its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12. That has given rise to the present appeal. 17. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that: (i) The High Court was not justified in quashing the final assessment order under