MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay in filing of appeal by the assesse is condoned for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2014-15. 8. Coming to merits of the case the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in these two assessment years the AO disallowed interest of Rs.37,46,010/- and Rs.5

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay in filing of appeal by the assesse is condoned for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2014-15. 8. Coming to merits of the case the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in these two assessment years the AO disallowed interest of Rs.37,46,010/- and Rs.5

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

Deduction of TDS as per Income Tax Act, Rs. 62,11,772/- ii) Disallowance 10% of exp of Rs.1,57,06,795.00/ Addition Rs.15,70,679 without going into the merits of the case. 3. That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in making ex parte order without considering condonation of delay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

condoning the delay of 1537 days without any reasonable\ncause?\nThe facts of the cases are that the assessee is a public limited company\nengaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery. It has\nfiled his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.11.2015\ndeclaring total income at ₹4,22,28,69,410/-under the normal

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

condoning the delay of 1537 days without any reasonable\ncause?\nThe facts of the cases are that the assessee is a public limited company\nengaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery. It has\nfiled his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.11.2015\ndeclaring total income at ₹4,22,28,69,410/-under the normal

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi assumed u/s 263 of the 7 Uday Kumar Vaish Act. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts

YKK INDIA (P) LTD vs. ACIT CICLE-18 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay itself. In view of these discussions, in our considered view, the condonation petition does not deserve to be accepted. We reject the same. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. Having held so, we may also add that even on merits grievance of the Assessing Officer is that “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay itself. In view of these discussions, in our considered view, the condonation petition does not deserve to be accepted. We reject the same. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. Having held so, we may also add that even on merits grievance of the Assessing Officer is that “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

MANTOLA CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX- 21,

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

delay is condoned. The applications stand disposed off. ITA Nos. 128/2017, 129/2017, 130/2017, 131/2017, 132/2017, 133/2017 & 134/2017 3. Issue notice. ITA 128/2017 & Connected matters Page 1 of 4 4. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra accepts notice for the respondents. 5. The question urged by the assessee is whether the impugned order of the ITAT to the extent it disallowed the deduction

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDELHI-08 vs. M/S S. CHAND & CO. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

condonation of delay of 1005 days from 23.10.2015 to 23.10.2018 after deducting 90 days allowed to file an appeal before

MANASBAL TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

delay of 788 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal of assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. On merits of the issue in appeal, the ld. Counsel submits that the assessee in appeal has assailed denial of deduction/exemption on corpus donations u/s. 11 (1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

condonation of delay in compliance with any provision of the Act. Section 119(2) reads as follows: Section 119(2) (a) ... (b) the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorise any income-tax authority, not being a Joint

M/S. JAYCEES PUBLIC SCHOOL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, RUDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

condonation of delay in filing of appeal in the case of M/s Jaycees Public School for AY 2009-10 in ITA No. 289/Del/2017 u/s. 147/143(30 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is most respectfully submitted that the assessee filed its return declaring Nil income on 29.09.2009 for A Y 2009-10 after claiming exemption

MEDSAVE HEALTH INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

deducted on the payments made during F.Y. 2013-14 & onwards and to be deposited to the Govt.’s A/c within prescribed time limits. However, the appellant company has failed to do so. Further, the appellant has contended that the intimation/ order has been processed by CPC-TDS in a mechanical manner without considering hardship and financial instability that the appellant