ITAT Delhi Bench

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2, DELHI vs HINDUSTAN POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

DILESHWAR NATH,NEW DELHI vs JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI, RANGE CODE- 73, NEW DELHI

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

DILESHWAR NATH,DELHI vs JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI, RANGE CODE- 73, DELHI

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

MEIDEN T & D (INDIA) LIMITED,DELHI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-21(2), DELHI

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

FRESENIUS KABI ONCOLOGY LIMITED,WEST DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/ NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

ESSCON INTEGRATED SECURITY SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,DELHI vs ITO WARD-8(1), DELHI

him :- 1. Assessment order passed u/s 143(2) & 144 is bad in law: -That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing authority u/s 143(2) & 144 is bad in law which deserve to be cancelled as no proper opportunity was given to the appellant as required under the law. II. Bonus & recognized Contribution to gratuity fund considered as income. That the on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Assessing authority has err

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 100 LIMITED,IRELAND vs ACIT INT. TAX. CIRCLE 1(2)(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

EINN VOLANT AIRCRAFT LEASING IRELAND 1 LIMITED,IRELAND vs ACIT INT. TAX. CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 15 LIMITED,IRELAND vs ACIT INT TAX CIRCLE 1(2)(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 38 LIMITED,IRELAND vs ACIT INT TAX CIRCLE 1(2)(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 32 LIMITED,IRELAND vs ACIT INT. TAX. CIRCLE 1(2)(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

TRENCHLESS ENGINEERING SEVICES PVT LTD,DELHI vs DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, DELHI

RAJESH,NOIDA vs ITO WARD-5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

the same. Thus, the impugned order has not merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

RAJESH ,NOIDA vs ITO WARD-5(3)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

the same. Thus, the impugned order has no merit as provided under Section 250 of the Act.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI, VIKAS BHAWAN DELHI vs PANKAJ SINGH, RAM VIHAR

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

PANKAJ SINGH,DELHI vs ITO,WARD-58(3), DELHI

SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

KESHAV DALAL,PALWAL vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

ARVIND BANSAL,DELHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(1), DELHI

SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

AMIT GUPTA,DELHI vs ITO,WARD 35(1), DELHI

the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.

AMIT GUPTA,DELHI vs ITO WARD - 36(1), DELHI

the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal being treated time barred. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed this appeal before the tribunal.