PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7.8 As regards

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

10(25)(ii) of the Act in ITRs nor the assessee was a registered Trust or Institution under section 12A of the Act. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) prayed for condonation of delay

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

10(25)(ii) of the Act in ITRs nor the assessee was a registered Trust or Institution under section 12A of the Act. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) prayed for condonation of delay

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condoned in respect of the bank, then the matter even in so far as the appellant is concerned would be over. 19. He further submitted that the order dated 03.03.2011 whereby the respondent No. 3 revoked the passport of the appellant was bad for another reason. The reason being that the said order dated 03.03.2011 refers to diversion of Foreign

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation for delay in filing application in form No.10A for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 10. Against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and raised several contentions which were all considered by the Tribunal which upheld in principle the right of the DIT (Exemptions

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation for delay in filing application in form No.10A for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 10. Against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and raised several contentions which were all considered by the Tribunal which upheld in principle the right of the DIT (Exemptions

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation for delay in filing application in form No.10A for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 10. Against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and raised several contentions which were all considered by the Tribunal which upheld in principle the right of the DIT (Exemptions

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay in filing of appeal; the mistake must be such as may be made by a professional Page 10 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. lawyer well-versed and experienced in law. If an assessee is genuinely aggrieved by an order referred to in Section

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Return of Income for A.Y 2016-17,2017-18, and 2018- 19 and Form No.9A and Form No. 10

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 34(3) of the Act”. “41. The question, which still requires to be answered, is whether a reasonable explanation has been given with regard to delay of 258 days in the refiling of the Objections. Since this delay crosses the frontier of the statutory limit, that is, three months and thirty days, we need to consider whether sufficient cause

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

RAM DHAN BHUTANI,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11 Ram Dhan Bhutani, Ito, H. No. 1534, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Hisar Sector-14, Hisar Pan-Abqpb8764M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 6. The main grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition on account of arrears of gratuity and the arrears of leave encashment received from the State Government after retirement. 7. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was an employee of the Chaudhary Charan Singh

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav. Shri B.P. Jainand

condoned the delay in filing of return and observed in the order as under: “In Exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( The Act) , the central Board of direct taxes hereby authorizes the assessing Officer to admit the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 filed