MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

7A(LGF), South Extension Part-II, vs. New Delhi 110049 PAN AADCM 2232 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. These appeals have been filed against the order

MAHALAXMI ORNAMENTS HOUSE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all three captioned appeals are allowed on legal grounds

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

7A(LGF), South Extension Part-II, vs. New Delhi 110049 PAN AADCM 2232 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. These appeals have been filed against the order

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal.

7A (LGF), South Extension, Bulandshahr. Part-II, New Delhi. PAN No. AATPK4646E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 29.08.2023 18.10.2023 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R This appeal has been filed

NEERAJ,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

7A, Faridabad, Vs Haryana-121001 Haryana-121006 PAN-AGJPN1533C Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Narender Chhillar, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders both dated 26.12.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned Commissioner of Income

NEERAJ ,FARIDABAD vs. PR, CIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

7A, Faridabad, Vs Haryana-121001 Haryana-121006 PAN-AGJPN1533C Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Narender Chhillar, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders both dated 26.12.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned Commissioner of Income

PUNEET PANDEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NOIDA

Appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmapuneet Pandey, Vs. Cit, Raj Kumar & Noida Associate, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Extn. Part-2, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Amzpp0202G

7A (LGF), south Extn. Part-2, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AMZPP0202G Assessee by : Shri Shailesh Kumar, CA Revenue by: Shri Waseem Ahmed, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 19/03/2024 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.2893/Del/2016 for AY 2008-09, arises out of the order

ESM GROUP INC,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(2)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Esm Group Inc. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T Suite 118 N, 300, Corporate Park Circle -1(2)(2) Way Amherst, New York International Taxation New Delhi Pan: Aacce 4072 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, Ca Department By :Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025

section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LD, AO has erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment ("PE") in the form and DAPE inM/s. Rajalakshmi International Corporation (Proprietor Anand Mathur) 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. PASWARA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

HOPEWIN ADMARK & CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI -4,

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

Section 7A(1). Thus no interest could have been charged prior to issue of the order dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008. The orders dated 12th September, 2008 and 24th October, 2008 insofar as it demands respective amount towards interest cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that

KARAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarkaran Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A3-44, Third Floor, Central Circle-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaack0039L Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

7A) of the Act to exercise the powers or perform the functions of Assessing Officer and as such, he did not have the jurisdiction to make the assessment since the order granting him jurisdiction under Section 120(2) and Section 120(4) was not passed, as is evident from the assessment order for the impugned assessment year, hence assessment

SH. HAFIZUDDIN HAZI,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

7A (LGF), South Extn., Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAQPH6525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Shri Sachin Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th March

SAHIL JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-47(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4615/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sahil Jindal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O M/S Raj Kumar & Associates, L- Ward-47(1), 7A, Lgf, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akgpj8905P Assessee By: Sh. Raj Kumar, Ca & Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

7A, LGF, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKGPJ8905P Assessee by: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. Suraj Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-11, Mumbai

KUBER FINANCE (I) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 1997-98

7A Building, New Delhi (LGF), South Extension Part- II, New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No.AAACK4643A Assessee by Shri Raj Kumar CA & Shri J P Sharma, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. EICHER MOTORS LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

7A) of the Rules, brought on the statute book vide Income Tax (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2016, w.e.f., 01.07.2016, providing for inclusion of details in relation to quantification of expenditure incurred at in-house R&D facility in Form 3CL to be submitted by DSIR to the department are prospective in nature and prior to that Form 3CL granting approval

EICHER MOTORS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

7A) of the Rules, brought on the statute book vide Income Tax (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2016, w.e.f., 01.07.2016, providing for inclusion of details in relation to quantification of expenditure incurred at in-house R&D facility in Form 3CL to be submitted by DSIR to the department are prospective in nature and prior to that Form 3CL granting approval

ACCORDIS HEALTH CARE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Accordis Health Care Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Central Circle-16, Ca, L-7A, (Lgf), South Extension New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach7405D

7A, (LGF), South Extension New Delhi Part-II, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACH7405D Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA Shri Shivam Gupta, CA Revenue by: Shri M. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 17/08/2022 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred

RAMESH KUMAR GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4937/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ramesh Kumar Goyal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O M/S Raj Kumar & Associates Ward-2(1), L-7A(Lgf), South Extension, Faridabad, Part-Ii, New Delhi-110049 Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anfpg9814N Assessee By: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, Ca & Sh. J. P. Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069720509(1) Dated 17.10.2024, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

7A(LGF), South Extension, Faridabad, Part-II, New Delhi-110049 Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANFPG9814N Assessee by: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA & Sh. J. P. Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer