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

14 comes into play only when the penalty which is imposed under Section 13, after following the due process of Section 16, is not paid by the person on whom the penalty is levied. He submitted that this is not the case here at all inasmuch as all the complaints under Section 16(3) of FEMA are pending and none

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

10 SCC 654, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus : “3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

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

14 instead of Column 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7. Thus, it was contended that there was a claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Only the breakup of exemption under section 10 of the Act was not properly mentioned in the respective column

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

14 instead of Column 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7. Thus, it was contended that there was a claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Only the breakup of exemption under section 10 of the Act was not properly mentioned in the respective column

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

10 of 22 body had colluded or were conniving with each other and using the trust as a platform to advance their nefarious agenda. In such a case the trust would equally be responsible. (c) The facts and the sequence of events right from the beginning disclosed that the trustees or the members of the governing body were not involved

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

10 of 22 body had colluded or were conniving with each other and using the trust as a platform to advance their nefarious agenda. In such a case the trust would equally be responsible. (c) The facts and the sequence of events right from the beginning disclosed that the trustees or the members of the governing body were not involved

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

10 of 22 body had colluded or were conniving with each other and using the trust as a platform to advance their nefarious agenda. In such a case the trust would equally be responsible. (c) The facts and the sequence of events right from the beginning disclosed that the trustees or the members of the governing body were not involved

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

section 253(3A) of the Act, the\nlimitation for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal expire\non 21.02.2015 and therefore, the present accompanying\nappeal is delayed by 1021 days.\n\n4) The matter regarding filing of appeal in the impugned case\nfor AY 2010-11 got missed due to the reason for this omission\nare as follows:-oversight which

DIGITE INC.,CALIFORINA vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

10. Respectfully following the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited (supra) we condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case

DIGITE INC. USA,PUNE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

10. Respectfully following the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited (supra) we condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case

M/S DIGITE INC. USA,USA vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

10. Respectfully following the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited (supra) we condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

10. Respectfully following the ratio laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited (supra) we condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case

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

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

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

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

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

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 253(1) of I.T. Act, and wishes to appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; the only plausible advice by a professional lawyer, well-versed and experienced

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

14 days where no sufficient cause were shown the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and directed the courts to decide the case on merits. In the light of the above discussion it is noted that revenue has given a detailed date ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year