SANJAY SAWHNEY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

reassessment proceedings. On merits, CIT(A) allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee and deleted all the additions/disallowances made by the AO. 3. Revenue contested the order passed by the CIT(A) by filing an appeal under Section 253(2) of the Act before the ITAT, contending that the CIT (A) had erred in deleting the additions

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

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

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

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

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

DNATA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON OR ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaldnata International Private Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Limited. Ground Floor, R1, R2, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Park Centra, Sector-30, Nh-8, Gurgaon Or Assessment Unit, Gurgaon, Haryana Income Tax Department, Pan: Aadcd7460P Gurgaon, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Nikhil Tiwari, Adv (Virtual) Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 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

ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaladidas India Marketing Private Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Limited. Office No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), C. R. Sector B Pocket No. 7 Plot No.11, Building, Delhi Vasantkunj South West Delhi Pan: Aaaca5313P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Sahni, 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

JUBILANT GENERICS LIMITED,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwaljubilant Generics Limited Vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Plot 1A, Sector-16A Noida H. O. Department, Gautam Buddha Nagar, 201301, Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aadcj2401L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Nidhi, Ar (Virutal) 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

TS TECH SUN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalts Tech Sun India Private Vs The Assistant Commissioner Limited, A-47, Lower Ground Of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), C. Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- R. Building, I. P. Estate, 110016 Delhi-110002, New Delhi Pan: Aaact4324M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Sahni, 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

ITRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NOIDA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalitron India Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner C-7, Sector-3, Noida Gautam Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Pan: Aabcs6575L New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Kashish Gupta, Ca 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

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

CLAAS AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, 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

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

SIGNIFY INNOVATIONS INDIA LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalsignify Innovations India Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 9B, 9Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Range Dlf Qe, S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana Code 107, Income Tax Officer, Pan: Aaicp0987G Shankar Chowk, Phase V, Udyogvihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Reema Grewal, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 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

ATHENA HISAR SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Vs Dcit, Assessment Unit, Ltd., J5/132, Rajouri Garden, Civic Centre, E-2, Delhi-110027 Delhi Pan-Aaoca5969P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 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 26.09.2024 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Raised Ground No. 2 Contending That The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2024 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. Athena Hisar Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit Roca Bathroom Products (P.) Ltd. [2022] 445 537 (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. Athena Hisar Solar Power 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