DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S YKK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay itself. In view of these discussions, in our considered view, the condonation petition does not deserve to be accepted. We reject the same. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. Having held so, we may also add that even on merits grievance of the Assessing Officer is that “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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, 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 -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

ZTE CORPORATION,CHINA vs. JCIT (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

274 days in filing of appeal by the Assessee for AY 2016-17. The Assessee had preferred an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the order of the CIT (A) dated 20.08.2019 was received by the Assessee on the communication address on 09.09.2019. In Paragraph 11 and 12 of the application for condonation of delay

DCIT, INT. TAX.,.CIRCLE GURGAON, GURGAON vs. ZTE CORPORATION , CHINA

274 days in filing of appeal by the Assessee for AY 2016-17. The Assessee had preferred an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the order of the CIT (A) dated 20.08.2019 was received by the Assessee on the communication address on 09.09.2019. In Paragraph 11 and 12 of the application for condonation of delay

ZTE CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

274 days in filing of appeal by the Assessee for AY 2016-17. The Assessee had preferred an application for condonation of delay wherein it has been stated that the order of the CIT (A) dated 20.08.2019 was received by the Assessee on the communication address on 09.09.2019. In Paragraph 11 and 12 of the application for condonation of delay

AVNET TECHNOLOGY HONG KONG LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1987/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2015-16) Avnet Technology Hong Kong Ltd., 22/F, Tower-2, Enterprises Square Five, 38, Wang Chiu Road, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong, Sar- 999999 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aakca-1127-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central International Tax 1(1)(1), Civic Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent E-2, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002

274 days. The assessee had filed application for condonation of delay 3 before the CIT(A), giving reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. The assessee has also furnished an affidavit before us, explaining reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the CIT(A). The reasons given by the assesee before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are alike

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. 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

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

KUBER KHAINI PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

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

NIDHI GOYAL,HARYANA vs. DCIT,, HISAR

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