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

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

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

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

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

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Assessment Years („AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

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

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Assessment Years („AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1 vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

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

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Assessment Years („AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. CORTEVA AGRISCIENCE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are disposed of in favour of the respondent/assessee and

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

delay in filing and re- filing the captioned appeals stands condoned. 4. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 344/2025 ITA 345/2025 ITA 349/2025 ITA 350/2025 5. As these four appeals involve identical issue relatable to the same assessee/respondent for the Asses AY’) 2002-03, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2010-11; they are being decided by this common order

PURE HOME & LIVING PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DLF BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED),NEW DELHI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2349/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Pure Home & Living Private Acit, Limited, Vs. Circle 7(1), (Formerly Known As Dlf Brands C.R. Building, Ito, Private Limited), New Delhi. 204, Ground F/F, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi. Pan No.Aafca7971E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 5 of the Limitation Act will consider the facts and circumstances not for taking too strict and pedantic stand which will cause injustice but to consider it from the point of taking a view which will advance the cause of justice. c. Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

97,400/- 20.6% 40,664/- 40,664/- 2004-05 9,85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed all the three appeals

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

97,400/- 20.6% 40,664/- 40,664/- 2004-05 9,85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed all the three appeals

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

97,400/- 20.6% 40,664/- 40,664/- 2004-05 9,85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed all the three appeals

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

AVA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3401/Del/2024, (A.Y.2019-20)

condoning the delay in filing the Appeal of 35 days despite the Assessee submitting in response to deficiency letter issued by the NFAC that delay in filing of appeal was on account of initial advice of a senior counsel to file a writ before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which writ was withdrawn on the advice of the High

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

SOM PRAKASH,SAHARANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the\nTribunal.\n4. Brief facts of the case are, the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of\nAIR information that assessee has deposited cash aggregating to Rs.33,14,600/-\nin UBI, Saharanpur Branch during FY 2011-12. Accordingly, notices were\nissued to the assessee under section