DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above. ITA Nos. 2553 & 2641/Del/2013 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. In the synopsis

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above. ITA Nos. 2553 & 2641/Del/2013 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. In the synopsis

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above. ITA Nos. 2553 & 2641/Del/2013 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. In the synopsis

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant extract of the condonation petition is reproduced as under: “ 1. That Mr. Naresh Kumar who is an illiterate Person having PAN No: AAWPK7713J (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") is a law abiding citizen of India. He is Prop. of Veenus Engineering and providing "Construction services" mainly to various

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant extract of the condonation petition is reproduced as under: “ 1. That Mr. Naresh Kumar who is an illiterate Person having PAN No: AAWPK7713J (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") is a law abiding citizen of India. He is Prop. of Veenus Engineering and providing "Construction services" mainly to various

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

282 ITR 52 when the appeal is preferred by the assessee when constantly the assessee did not object to the order of the ld CIT(A) for about five years. The Hon'ble High Court held that tribunal was correct in refusing to condone the delay. In that particular case also there was no sufficient cause shown by the assessee

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarmanoj Kumar Singh Vs. Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh Central Circle-28 S-17, Ground Floor, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi- 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in dispute is condoned and appeal of the revenue stands admitted. 2. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT, Range- 8, Delhi to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of Ld. AR the approval was given u/s 153D

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarmanoj Kumar Singh Vs. Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh Central Circle-28 S-17, Ground Floor, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi- 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in dispute is condoned and appeal of the revenue stands admitted. 2. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT, Range- 8, Delhi to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of Ld. AR the approval was given u/s 153D

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

delay of 103 days in filing the appeal stands 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

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

PR. CIT-1 vs. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

delays in re-filing the respective appeals are condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 665/2015 & 666/2015 5. The short question that arises for determination in the present appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 29th August 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PR. CIT-1 vs. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

delays in re-filing the respective appeals are condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 665/2015 & 666/2015 5. The short question that arises for determination in the present appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 29th August 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

BHOLESHWAR CHOPRA,DELHI vs. WARD 68(5) , DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2340 & 2336/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 बनाम Bholeshwar Chopra Ito Ec 336, Maya Enclave, Vs. Ward 68(5), G 8 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Adupc7256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282/- under Section 36(1)(va) concerning PF/ESL This adjustment is deemed to lack legal basis, as the contributions towards ESI and EPF were made in a timely manner. 5. The Assessee asserts that the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) at the Central Processing Center (CPC) unlawfully issued an order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without adhering