PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. GOPAL KUMAR GOYAL

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM APPL. 33609/2023 2. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 220 days. 3. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 4. Accordingly, the application is disposed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S CELLCAST INTERACTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

delay in filing and re- filing the appeal is condoned. The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 258/2024 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 13 January 2023 and in terms of which the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer to re- examine the question of Section 271

SOM NATH VIRMANI AND SONS HUF,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied or not was subject matter of consideration by the Coordinate Bench of Indore Tribunal in the case of Smt Kavitha Sachdev vs ITO in ITA No. 255/Ind/2023 dated 16-05-2024. The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced here under:- “4. We have considered the rival submissions

INCOME TAX( CENTRAL)- 2 vs. M/S HARSH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

delay is condoned and the applications stand disposed of. 1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 22 ITA 620/2019 and ITA 622/2019 nd 2. Since both the present appeals arise out of a common impugned order and raise identical questions of law, the same are being decided vide this common order. May, 2018 passed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI -7 vs. UNITECH RELIABLE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

delay in the above-captioned applications is condoned. 5. The above-captioned applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 291/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appeal seeks to lay challenge to the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “the Tribunal”]. 8. The facts emerging from

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

section 271(1)(c) for imposing the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3 2281/Del/2014 & C.O. No. 204.Del.14 M/s Kostub Investment Ltd. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the assessee had filed the objections at a belated stage, therefore, there is an objection by the Registry

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14,NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

condone the delay. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee while filing return of income u/s 153C of the Act had declared capital gain of Rs 20,84,508/-on sale of property for a total consideration of Rs 71,50,000/-. The assessee while calculating capital gain, had taken an amount

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. DEEPA TALWAR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for payment of penalty and not for the initiation of proceedings. 3.5 The assessee has to positively prove that there is a case of non- application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

271(1)(c)(iii) only require prior approval of the IAC for direction for payment of penalty and not for the initiation of proceedings. 3.5 The assessee has to positively prove that there is a case of non- application of mind in light of the submission that the approval u/s 153D is an administrative approval. Here, it would

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, NEW DELHI vs. GENPACT SERVICES LLC

The appeal is dismissed

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the above captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 133/2025 3. The Revenue has filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No. 899/Del/2018 in respect of Assessment Year

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 filing of appeals before us and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 242/Del/2024 :- ―1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (herein after referred to as "the CIT(A)") dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee company

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 filing of appeals before us and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 242/Del/2024 :- ―1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (herein after referred to as "the CIT(A)") dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee company

NEW MANGALORE PORT ROAD COMPANY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) 3. The assessee has admitted that the impugned order dated 15.09.2022 was received on 26.12.2024. However, it had also filed an affidavit justifying the delay in filing this appeal. Keeping in view decisions of the Hon’ble New Mangalore Port Road Company Ltd. Supreme Court in cases of Collector

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. THAPER HOMES PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed against the

delay of 56 days in filing the captioned appeal stands condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 262/2025 3. The challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.08.2025 18:18:46 Signature Not Verified ITA 262/2025 Page 2 of 13 Act, 1961 (the Act) filed by the Revenue

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The AO 2015:DHC:9521-DB ITA 132/2008 Page 7 of 19 also noted that the Assessee was unable to produce any confirmation regarding advance a sum of Rs. 3,41,26,000. This was despite being asked to provide the details by a questionnaire dated 29th February 1992. Consequently, the AO estimated

NIRMALA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 40(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 271(1 )(c) on the appellant in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. None appeared for the Assessee even after issuing notices several times to the Assessee, considering the issues involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to hear the Ld. DR and dispose of the present Appeal. 4. There is a delay

DCIT, CC-01, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the cross objections before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has taken the ground in the cross objections that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating/rejecting Ground No.2 raised before him which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity :- “2. That the penalty order passed

DCIT, CC-01, NEW DELHI vs. SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in AY 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue in AY 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the cross objections before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has taken the ground in the cross objections that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating/rejecting Ground No.2 raised before him which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity :- “2. That the penalty order passed