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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delay in filing of cross objections are condoned. 6. In the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, original return was filed on 1.4.2008 showing loss of Rs. 2,48,53,260/-. Later on, search and seizure operation was carried on 19.1.2009 in Kurele Group including Assessee Company and accordingly, notice u/s 153A was issued on 30.11.2009. In response

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delay in filing of cross objections are condoned. 6. In the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, original return was filed on 1.4.2008 showing loss of Rs. 2,48,53,260/-. Later on, search and seizure operation was carried on 19.1.2009 in Kurele Group including Assessee Company and accordingly, notice u/s 153A was issued on 30.11.2009. In response

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delay in filing of cross objections are condoned. 6. In the appeal for the assessment year 2007-08, original return was filed on 1.4.2008 showing loss of Rs. 2,48,53,260/-. Later on, search and seizure operation was carried on 19.1.2009 in Kurele Group including Assessee Company and accordingly, notice u/s 153A was issued on 30.11.2009. In response

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

NTPC BHEL POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-18(2), DELHI

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

condone the delay of 852 days in filing the appeal and admitted for adjudication. 6.The brief facts of the case are that assessee is EPC Contractor engaged to have certain preliminary site enabling assets for 6 facilitating project construction of 500MW unit Power Plant at site. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30-09-2015 declaring loss

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

house property. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 27/04/2023, the assessee instead of filing the Appeal before this Tribunal, preferred Appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-42 vide order dated 29/02/2024 dismissed the Appeal filed by the assessee as the same is not maintainable. Thereafter

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house property’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 37,58,036 on the employees

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house property’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure of Rs. 37,58,036 on the employees

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

house property’. 29. As regards the expenditure towards salaries and other benefits to its employees, postage and telegrams, travelling, rent and taxes, water and 2016:DHC:2463-DB ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 17 of 71 electricity, printing and stationery etc. in the sum of Rs.1,45,98,768.16, the AO allowed the entire expenditure

CHARANDASS JUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 31(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Charandas Juneja, Vs Ito, J-2/12A, 2Nd Floor, Right Side Khirki Ward-31(1), Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Agtpj3483H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Smt. Indira Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2021

house property. The CIT(A) failed to examine the facts of the case even when all details were furnished by the assessee. There is no capital gain on the alleged transactions reported to have been made by the appellant. Proper opportunity of presenting the full facts of the case before CIT(A) was also denied. The order is illegal against

ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

delay in depositing Employees Contribution of PE/ESI and on account of income of house property and thereby the returned income of Rs. 18,10,42,260/- was recomputed at Rs. 30,93,07,020/-. Admittedly, assessee had preferred an appeal 5 1097/Del/2023 against this intimation and the same was withdrawn for which assessee claims. The reason for withdrawal was that

CHANDRAPAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

property sold for Rs.73,05,000/- was Rs.14,61,000/-, the A.O. treated the same as the income of the assessee and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.14,61,000/-. 3.1. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the ex-parte order passed by the A.O. Since there was delay of more than

PARVEEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Parveen Batra, Vs. Acit, Circle 3(1)(1), D – 82B, Siwad Parea, Muzaffarnagar. Krishna Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur – 302 015 (Rajasthan). (Pan : Abwpb1332M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Punia, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 04.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & Facts In Not Condoning The Delay. Kindly Condone The Delay & Treat The Appeal As A Valid Appeal.

condoned the delay of 5 days and dismissed the ground raised by the assessee and other grounds raised by the assessee are allowable as business expenditure and he brought to our notice the relevant facts as under. 3. Assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for AY 2020-21 on 12.02.2021 declaring total income at Rs.72