M/S. GLOBAL TELEVENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

M/S. GLOBAL HERITAGE VENTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

M/S. GLOBAL REALTY CREATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253 : that if the statute mandates that something be done in a particular manner, should be in that manner or not at all. In this case, since the original assessment was completed "other than" the eventualities contemplated in Section 151(1), i.e. it was processed under Section 143(1). Thus, clearly Section 151(2) applied. » .  CIT vs. SPL'S Siddhartha

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment; Section 253(1)(d) of the Act governing filing of appeals to the Tribunal by - the eligible assessee, which

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment; Section 253(1)(d) of the Act governing filing of appeals to the Tribunal by - the eligible assessee, which

SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

1)(ii) of the Act. In response thereto, the appellant filed the original return of income declaring total income of Rs.8,90,760/- and submitted that the same be treated as a return in compliance to notice under Section 153C of the Act. The assessment proceedings culminated in framing of an assessment order dated 28.12.2010 whereby the return of income

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

reassessment or rectification proceedings, but not penalty proceedings. (iii) If ingredients contained in (i) and (ii) ore present a notice to show cause under Section 274 of the Act shall issue setting out therein the infraction the assessee is said to have committed. The notice under Section 274 of the Act can be issued both during or after the completion

ACIT CC vs. PANCHSHEEL HOMES (P) LTD,

The appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

253 which has the effect of restricting this right to file a cross-objection. In a given case, it is quite possible that certain matters may not be agitated either by the Commissioner or the assessee by way of an appeal, but if any appeal is filed either by the assessee or the ITO, then the opposite party might consider

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 5Th Floor, C/O Regus Circle-13(1) Business Center, Gurgaon C.R. Building, Delhi Road, South West Delhi- 110037. Pan-Aaacj2919A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sumit Mangal, Adv. Ms. Radhika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Soumya Pandey, Adv. Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Dated 23.10.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Bench Has Asked The Assessee To File Specific Ground Of Appeal No.2 As Against General Ground Of Appeal No. 2 Taken. In Compliance, Assessee Vide Application Dt. 12.03.2025 Filed Under Rule 11 Of The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 Raised Additional Ground Of Appeal Under. The Additional Ground Of Appeal Taken Reads As Under: Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit

253 or in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A. Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision

WIN MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI), DELHI

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

253 or in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 260A. (4) Where the order of 22[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, referred to in sub-section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other

LS CABLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

253 or in clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section 260A. (4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, referred to in sub- section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other

LS CABLE INDIA P.LTD.,REWARI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

253 or in clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section 260A. (4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, referred to in sub- section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings, competent authority would be the Joint Commissioner. 7. The ITAT examined the applicability of Section 292B based upon the decision in S.P.L's Siddhartha Ltd. (supra), which rejected the revenue's contention about its application holding that where a jurisdictional infirmity strikes at the root, invalidating the issuance of notice, Section 292B cannot rescue it. 8. The Revenue

AIRBNB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI, INDIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, DELHI, DELHI, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalairbnb India Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Caddie Commercial Central Revenue Building, Tower, Aerocity, Vs. Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aakca5525B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Department By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By Ao Dated 24.07.2024 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. & 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Subsequent To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Vide Direction Dated 27.06.2024. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 24/07/2024 Passed By The A.O. Is Time Barred By Limitation & Is Bad In Law, As It Has Been Passed Beyond The Time Frame Prescribed Under Section 153(1) Read With Section 153(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short). The Ld. Assessee’S Representative Relying On The Ratio Laid Down By The Hon'Ble High Court Of Madras In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (Madras) & Also Airbnb India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plethora Of Orders Passed By The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Sought For Allowing The Ground No. 2 Of The Assessee.

253 or in clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section 260A. (4) Where the order of 29[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, referred to in sub- section (1) is not in conformity with the final decision on the question of law in the other