MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition on merits. Ld. CIT (A), however, vide order dated 29th September, 2011 did not found any merit in both the contentions raised by the Appellant

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition on merits. Ld. CIT (A), however, vide order dated 29th September, 2011 did not found any merit in both the contentions raised by the Appellant

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition on merits. Ld. CIT (A), however, vide order dated 29th September, 2011 did not found any merit in both the contentions raised by the Appellant

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

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

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalteva Pharmaceutical & Chemical Vs Assessment Unit, Income Industries India Private Limited, Tax Department/Deputy 8Th Floor, C-Wing Time Square, Commissioner Of Income Andherikurla Road, Marol Naka, Tax, Circle 25(1), Opp Mittal Industrial Estate C. R. Building, Delhi- Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059, 110001 Maharashtra, India Pan: Bnspk7225H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, Sh. Sohamdua, Adv& Sh. Abhiudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: 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.

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

XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

COIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalcoim India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Shop No. 4, Ground Floor Income Tax, Income Tax Rajendrabhawan, Patel Nagar, Department, Circle 4(2), East Central Delhi, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aabcy0901A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

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

BENTLEY SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalbentley Systems India Private V Deputy Commissioner Of Limited. Work Well Suites, 10 Floor, S Income Tax, Circle 4(2), C. Max House, 1516/338,339 340 R. Building, Assessment Village Behapur Adjacent Okhla Unit, Income Tax Railway Station, Okhla Industrial Department, Delhi Estate, S.O. Tehkhand, South East Delhi, Delhi, 110020 Pan: Aabcb5645E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nishank Vashistha, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

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

VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

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 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

AIRBNB PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), GURUGRAM, HARYANA, GURUGRAM, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalairbnb Payments India Private Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Gurugram, Haryana. Level 9, Spaze I Tech Park, Vs A1 Tower, Sector-49, . Sohna Road, Gurugram-122018 Haryana. Pan-Aanca6203B (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 18.07.2024 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 24.06.2024. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 18/07/2024 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 Airbnb Payments India Private Limited Vs. Dcit 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 Itr 537 (Madras) & Also 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

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

BEUMER INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW 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 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

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

AL MAHA FOODS INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (JAO - DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalal Maha Foods International Vs National Faceless Private Limited, 1122, Dlf Assessment Centre (Jao- Tower A, Jasola, New Friends Dcit Circle 1(1), C. R. Colony, S.O. Zakir Nagar, Building, I. P. Estate, Delhi Delhi-110025 New Delhi Pan: Aabca8743L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv& Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaloracle India Private Limited Vs Addl. Cit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon Range-13 Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Oracle India Private Limited Vs Dcit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Circle-19(1) Salconrasvilas, D-1, District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs Oracle India Private Limited Circle-19(1) F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon New Delhi Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naveen Dhamija, Ca, Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Ca& Sh. Rinku Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

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

M/S. ORACLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaloracle India Private Limited Vs Addl. Cit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon Range-13 Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, New Delhi Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Oracle India Private Limited Vs Dcit F-01/02, 1St Floor, Circle-19(1) Salconrasvilas, D-1, District New Delhi Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Dcit Vs Oracle India Private Limited Circle-19(1) F-01/02, 1St Floor, Salcon New Delhi Rasvilas, D-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi Pan: Aaaco0158L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Naveen Dhamija, Ca, Sh. Vishal Aggarwal, Ca& Sh. Rinku Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

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