SIGMA RESEARCH & CONSULTING PVT. LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

The appeal is allowed and the addition made under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Delay of 03 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons explained and stated in the application. Application is allowed. CM APP No. 4019/2018 (Stay) Disposed of as not pressed, in view of the fact that the appeal is taken- up for hearing. ITA 120/2018 page 2 of 9 ITA No.120/2018 Present appeal under Section 260A

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

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

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

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

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

7. On the basis of facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the Hon’ble Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed late without appreciating the fact that hearing notice U/s 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1061 have been issued 6 times before against which

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)

7,83,059.71 Total A 55,181.76 16,55,91,927.64 Total 55,181.76 16,55,91,927.64 MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31st MARCH 2009 Particulars Qty Amount (Rs.) Particulars Qty Amount (Rs.) To Opening Stock 1,532.00 37,51,840.00 By Sales 92,000.59 18,89,22,362.35 To Purchases/ Manufacturing

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

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

7 Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. versus NAGAR DAIRY PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vidhan Jain, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 18.09.2024 CM APPL. 33418/2023 (14 Days Delay) in ITA 341/2023 Bearing in the mind the disclosures made, the delay

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. PROSPEROUS BUILDCON PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/ revenue, there is a delay of 290 days in re- filing the appeal. Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:17.11.2023 11:49:09 Signature Not Verified ITA 239/2019 Page 2 of 7 2. Mr Rohit Jain, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says

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

MANGAL SINGH KHATANA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals of the assessee are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

delay in dispute in all the appeals, are condoned and the appeals are admitted. 3. Further, Ld. AR has drew our attention towards an application dated 2.4.2026 of the assessee for admission of following additional grounds wherein, it was stated that the said grounds are purely legal, does not require fresh facts to be investigated and goes to the root

MANGAL SINGH KHATANA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals of the assessee are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

delay in dispute in all the appeals, are condoned and the appeals are admitted. 3. Further, Ld. AR has drew our attention towards an application dated 2.4.2026 of the assessee for admission of following additional grounds wherein, it was stated that the said grounds are purely legal, does not require fresh facts to be investigated and goes to the root

MANGAL SINGH KHATANA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals of the assessee are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

delay in dispute in all the appeals, are condoned and the appeals are admitted. 3. Further, Ld. AR has drew our attention towards an application dated 2.4.2026 of the assessee for admission of following additional grounds wherein, it was stated that the said grounds are purely legal, does not require fresh facts to be investigated and goes to the root

MANGAL SINGH KHATANA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals of the assessee are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

delay in dispute in all the appeals, are condoned and the appeals are admitted. 3. Further, Ld. AR has drew our attention towards an application dated 2.4.2026 of the assessee for admission of following additional grounds wherein, it was stated that the said grounds are purely legal, does not require fresh facts to be investigated and goes to the root

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