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 is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the Auditors who conducted the audit of the society, bonafidely believed that society was not required to obtain and file the audit report in form 10B as the total income being NIL was less than Rs. 2,50,000/- and due to confusion in interpretation of law, filed audit report

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN TRADE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- EXEMPT 1(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 4944/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2023-24) Indian Institute Of Foreign Deputy Commissioner Of Trade, Income Tax, B-21, Iift Bhawan, Qutab Vs Circle Exempt 1(1), Institutional Area, Shaheed Delhi, Jeet Singh Marg, Civic Centre, New Delhi- New Delhi-110016. 110002. Pan- Aaati0438E Assessee Revenue

10-B 01.11.2023 for which the due date was 31.10.2023. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that it constituted violation of the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(E), Delhi vide his order

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No. 273 dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No. 273 dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No. 273 dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay in filing form 10B, and Commissioner (Appeals) did not have any power under

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 9. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act as the order of Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue apart from that there exist

M/S. H.M. AGRIEXPORTS PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. PR. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2012-13 H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, Hm Agriexports, Muzaffarnagar. Chilkana Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 (Pan: Aacch5350D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Meeta Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2018 O R D E R

condone the delay of 58 days and admit the appeal for regular hearing. 6.0 The Ld. AR drew our attention to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and also placed on record a copy of the order sheet of the original assessment proceedings and submitted that vide order sheet entry dated 25.8.2014, the AO had made

SMT. BURFI DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

10. Having heard both the parties and keeping in mind that the assessee has since deceased and is being represented by her widow who herself is above 80 years of age and who did not have adequate legal assistance so as to safeguard her interest, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and accordingly admit the appeal for hearing

SMT. BURFI DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

10. Having heard both the parties and keeping in mind that the assessee has since deceased and is being represented by her widow who herself is above 80 years of age and who did not have adequate legal assistance so as to safeguard her interest, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and accordingly admit the appeal for hearing

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. BURFI DEVI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 1998-99

10. Having heard both the parties and keeping in mind that the assessee has since deceased and is being represented by her widow who herself is above 80 years of age and who did not have adequate legal assistance so as to safeguard her interest, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and accordingly admit the appeal for hearing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. ASCENT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Ita No:- 3734/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022)

108 along with return of income. The appellant/assessee uploaded the audit report within a week of filing return of income. It cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under section 11 merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements of various courts it is held that appellant cannot be denied benefit of claiming deduction

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

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

108. Since no attempt has been made by the INC to place before the AO, or even before the CIT (A), acceptable audited accounts, from ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 55 of 71 which the AO could deduce the taxable income of the assessee, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section

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

108. Since no attempt has been made by the INC to place before the AO, or even before the CIT (A), acceptable audited accounts, from ITA Nos. 145/2001 & 180/2001 Page 55 of 71 which the AO could deduce the taxable income of the assessee, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section

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

10 (Cal) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Medicaps Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP). Reference was also made to the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bijli Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) to contend that the income tax authorities ought to have accepted the audit reports produced before

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELCO INDIA PVT. LTD.

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

delay in filing and in re filing the appeals is condoned. 2. ,The applications stand disposed of. ITA 116/2016 ITA 917/2015 ITA 74/2016 3. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 16 : June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter