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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40A(3) 8,04,497 4. Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses 1,35,694 Total Income under normal provisions 8,73,72,576! Particulars Amount in Rs. 6. Thus, the Ld. AO has passed the Assessment Order u/s. 143 (3) of the IT Act, 1961 by assessing the income at Rs.8,73,72,576/- and interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C

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

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. SHAHI EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED

condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 201 days. 2. Issue notice to the non-applicant/respondent via all modes, including e-mail. 3. List the above-captioned application on 17.08.2023. ITA 207/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-2017. 5. The issue which arises for consideration

DLF MIDTOWN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay of 646 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of case are that the assessee is engaged in business of construction, development and sale of integrated townships and residential houses and apartments. The assessee filed the return of income on 28/09/2016 declaring loss of Rs.3,97,74,805/- which was subsequently revised on 30/11/2016