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

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TECHNIP ENERGIES ITALY S.P.A.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

delay of 165 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Application is disposed of. ITA 142/2024 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 28 February 2023 and has proposed the following question of law for our consideration: “2.1 Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in holding

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TECHNIP ENERGIES ITALY S.P.A.

delay of 165 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Application is disposed of. ITA 142/2024 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 28 February 2023 and has proposed the following question of law for our consideration: “2.1 Whether the Ld. ITAT has erred in holding

SIGMA CORPORATION INDIA LTD. vs. DCIT

The appeal is allowed in

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

delay of 11 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is taken on record. 2. The application stands disposed off. ITA 795/2016 3. The question of law which arises for consideration is as follows:- “Did the ITAT fall into error in restoring the disallowance of 50% of `48 lakhs paid to the appellant/assessee employee for the relevant

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 04 DELHI vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the Revenue

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

delay of 29 days in filing and 914 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned. 2. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of. ITA 370/2025 3. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) lays a challenge to the order dated 12.08.2022 in ITA No. 9364/DEL/2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

40A(7) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act well in time. Later after 4 years and 07 months, the assessee filed first appeal against the processing order under section 143(1) 2 HCIL Comtel P. Ltd. of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed against the

condonation of 38 days delay in filing the appeal and also 906 days delay in refilling the appeal in ITA 329/2025 and 38 days delay in filing the appeal and also 905 days delay in refilling the appeal in ITA 332/2025. 4. For the reasons stated in the applications, we allow the delay in refilling as well as the delay

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. SMR AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA LTD.

condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal] 2. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 3. Broadly, the only issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal] was correct in holding that the Specified Domestic Transactions (SDTs) did not attract the regime of transfer pricing, in view

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3) of the Act whereas the SCN under section 263 was regarding the FIFO method of valuation of closing stock adopted by the Assessee. These were, as rightly noted by the IT A T, unconnected issues and the assessment order could not have been held to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" when the AO could

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-2 vs. NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD.

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 320/2023, ITA 326/2023, ITA 341/2023 & ITA 369/2023 1. Since the respondents are duly represented, no further steps need be taken. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 dated 24 November 2022 and has posited

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

SULTAN SINGH,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KARNAL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshri Sultan Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Haryana Rice Trader, Ward-1, 780, Gali No. 2, Behind Sector- Karnal 6, Durga Colony, Haryana- 132001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buups6518L Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 3. The Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are challenging the confirmation of addition made by the learned CITA of Rs. 1,51,36,000 on account of salaries and wages paid by the assessee to his employees . 4. We have heard the rival submissions

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

40A(3) would not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income as the incurring of the said expenditure is not in dispute. (Principal CIT v Torque Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., 2016 SCC On Line P&H 7150; Solidity Developers Private Ltd v CIT 2018 SCC On Line ITAT 20748). 27.3 Further submitted that Irrelevant limb

MOHD ABID,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case assessee had filed his return of income electronically on 17.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 6,69,770/-. Return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment

REFRESHMENT PRODUCT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Refreshment Product Vs. Acit Service India Private Circle – 19 (1) Limited, B-91, Mayapuri New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan No.Aagcr4112D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Sh. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Advocate Sh. Aditya Rathore, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

40A(7) of the Act in the 3 previous year(s) This results in taxing the same amount to twice which is against the basic principles of taxation. Ground no. 4-Inadvertent levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred

TIRUPATI INKS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tirupati Inks Ltd. Vs Dcit 1517, Devika Tower, Circle- 25 (1) 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacs2222F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shriharpal Singh Kharb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for assessment year 2013- 14. 2. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee at the time of hearing. Even no application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. Though three notices for the date of hearing on 18/08/2021, 2/11/2021 and 06/01/2022 were sent though RPAD

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI II vs. LEO FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condone the delay in refiling. ITA 558/2010 Having heard the counsel for the parties, we have frame the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2. During the course of hearing it is stated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal. & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 69C can be invoked when the appellant only incurs an expenditure and such expenditure was not satisfactorily explained with regard to source of such expenditure or part thereof then the amount covered by such expenditure would be deemed to be income of the appellant. In the present case the expenditure was incurred by M/s Samsung Construction Ltd., another person