Delhi High Court
ITA/459/2025 of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), DELHI Vs KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LTD. on 23 September 2026
Page 1 of 6 $~27 to 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011023702023 + ITA 459/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3), DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Amanpreet Singh
$~27 to 32
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC011023702023
+
DELHI
.....Appellant
Through:
versus
KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr.
Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant
Sanjenbam, Adv.
CNR No. DLHC011023712023
+
ITA 460/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3),
DELHI
.....Appellant
Through:
versus
KRISHAK BHARTI CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr.
Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant
Sanjenbam, Adv.
CNR No. DLHC011322892024
+
ITA 569/2026
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW
DELHI
.....Appellant
Through:
Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy
Jain, JSC, Mr. Udit Dad, Mr. Ujjwal
Jain, Adv.
versus
M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr.
Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant
Sanjenbam, Adv.
CNR No. DLHC011322902024
+
ITA 570/2026
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 3 NEW
DELHI
.....Appellant
Through:
Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy
Jain, JSC, Mr. Udit Dad, Mr. Ujjwal
Jain, Adv.
versus
M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD .....Respondent Through:
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr.
Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant
Sanjenbam, Adv.
CNR No. DLHC011023692023
+
ITA 461/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3),
DELHI
....Appellant
Through:
versus
KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr.
Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant
Sanjenbam, Adv.
CNR No. DLHC011023722023
+
ITA 465/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-3),
DELHI
.....Appellant
Through:
versus
KRISHAK BHARTI CO-OPERATIVE LTD.
.....Respondent
Through:
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.; Mr.
Harshit Singh, Adv.; Mr. Yashwant
Sanjenbam, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
23.09.2026 CM APPL. 60325/2025 in ITA 459/2025
1. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
3. The application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 60326/2025 in ITA 459/2025
4. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
5. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 864 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
6. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60330/2025 in ITA 460/2025
7. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
8. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 805 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
9. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60333/2025 in ITA 461/2025
10. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
11. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
12. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60334/2025 in ITA 461/2025
13. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
14. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 864 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
15. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 60435/2025 in ITA 465/2025
16. This is an application on behalf of the Appellant for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
17. For the reasons stated in the appeal, the delay of 842 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
18. The application is disposed of. ITA 459/2025 , ITA 460/2025 , ITA 569/2026, ITA 570/2026, ITA 461/2025 , ITA 465/2025
19. Learned Counsel for the parties state that in view of the Order passed by this Court in PCIT v. M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., (2022) 448 ITR 674 (Delhi) which has been followed by this Court in the Order dated 23.02.2026 titled as PR Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 3 New Delhi v. Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd., ITA 147/2026, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “12. In the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (Supra), this Court has held thus:- “8. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the amendment of Section 14A, which is “for removal of doubts” cannot be presumed to be retrospective even where such language is used, if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood.
9. Though the judgment of this Court has been challenged and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court, yet there is no stay of the said judgment till date. Consequently, in view of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1, the present appeal is dismissed being covered by the judgment passed by the learned predecessor Division Bench in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (supra) and Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33.
10. Accordingly, the appeal and application are dismissed. However, it is clarified that the order passed in the present appeal shall abide by the final decision of the Supreme Court in the special leave petition (SLP) filed in the case of Pr. CIT v. IL and FS Energy Development Company Ltd. (supra).”
13. Following the above judgment, the appeal is dismissed, however with the stipulation as given in para no. 10 above in the case of M/s Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (Supra).”
20. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 hsk