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

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

KASREE DEVI,MAWANA MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(3), AYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeal and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. For the sake of clarity the submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: “The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order

RITS JEWELLERS PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, FARIDABAD

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12/04/2017 at returned income of Rs. 2,07,909/-. The case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ through the CASS to verify large share premium received during the year. Notice

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNIPARTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

108 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an application dated 21.09.2017 seeking condonation of delay. 3. After considering rival submissions, we are of the view that delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. In ground

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the assessee case are that, the assessee filed return declared income of RS. 2,74,730/- which has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued. The case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

108 & 128 to 135 of the Paper Book-2 filed on 09.01.2024.\n\n7.2.4 Details of these replies submitted before AO have been filed\nbefore me by appellant. However, AO has ignored them. In view of the\nfacts that these expenses are supported by bills, payment has been\nmade by cheque, and TDS has been deducted on the same

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 7. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as emanating from the statement of facts submitted by the assessee are that the assessee is an individual having income from salary and also engaged in the proprietorship business of trading Fabrics and Readymade Garments in Page 3 of 14 ITA No. 3463/DEL/2024

RISHAB JHUNJHUNWALA,DELHI vs. AO WARD-1(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Rishab Jhunjhunwala Vs Pcit, Delhi-1 E-28 Geetanjali Enclave, Delhi Pan No. Aeupj8955M (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merit. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal as under: 1. That Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law as well as on facts in setting aside the assessment order passed by AO on 21-12-2017 u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 because

DCIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TRUSTLINE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2014-15

delay in filing appeal was condoned. The Ld. AR had no objection. 3. The Revenue has taken the following grounds :- “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income

R.D. VOHRA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing\nappeal and appeal of assessee are allowed

108 taxmann.com 610\n(Delhi-Trib);\niii) Neha Goel Vs. PCIT – ITANo.2624/Del/2024 (Order Dtd.\n28.05.2025);\niv) Shobhit Goel HUF Vs. PCIT – ITA No. 2622/Del/2024 (Order\nDtd. 27.02.2025);\nv) PCIT vs. Badal Prakash Jindal – [2023] 150 taxmann.com 483\n(Orissa);\nvi) Westlife Development Ltd. Vs. PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com\n439 (Mumbai)/ [2016] 49 ITR(T) 406 (Mumbai) 24.06.2016).\n10.\nLearned Authorised

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. M/S PARAMOUNT PROPBUILD PVT. LTD.

condonation of delay of 247 days in filing the appeal] 2. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 3. The record shows that an assessment order under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] was framed qua the respondent/assessee. 3.1 This order is dated 26.12.2018. 4. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short, “PCIT