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 of the Act in all preceding and subsequent years as the assessee was recognized as a PF Trust in accordance with the Rule 3 of part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Act since 30.08.1984. A simple prima-facie mistake Act. The assessee filed petitions, under section 119(2) of the Act, before the Ld. PCIT to allow

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

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

section I 19(2)(b) of the Act, the CBDT has decided that where the application for condonation of delay in filing Form 9A and Form 10 has been filed, and the Return of Income has been filed on or before 31 S1 March of the respective assessment years i.e. Assessment Years 20

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

20\ncomponents/sq. Inch\n\n40% Designs with 10-18 Layer PCBs, up to 4000 components on a\nboard\n\n2-Level Micro Via/Via-on-Pad/Blind Via/Buried Via\n\nISO 9001 compliant, comprehensive 132-step checklist for\nproduction on second spin\n\nQuality Audits for top global product companies, for Industrial,\nCommercial and MILSPEC Designs\n\nDiagnostics at the CM/OEM site for high

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay in filing of appeal by the assesse is condoned for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2014-15. 8. Coming to merits of the case the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in these two assessment years the AO disallowed interest of Rs.37,46,010/- and Rs.5

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay in filing of appeal by the assesse is condoned for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2014-15. 8. Coming to merits of the case the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in these two assessment years the AO disallowed interest of Rs.37,46,010/- and Rs.5

SURESH KUMAR ARORA,HISAR vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed as above

Bench: Hearing Of Appeal, Which Is Illegal. Hence Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Order Of The Assessing Officer, Must Be Quashed.”

delay, we condone the same. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.11,37,656/-. The learned Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed excess gratuity of Rs.6,50,000/- under section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act and the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee

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

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the Act and deletion notional interest of Rs.10,49,768/- taxed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’). 3.1 The Revenue’s appeal is delay by 20 days. Condonation

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the Act and deletion notional interest of Rs.10,49,768/- taxed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’). 3.1 The Revenue’s appeal is delay by 20 days. Condonation

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 the delay in filing Form 10B and to claim the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Page 2 of 10 ITA No.- 3657/Del/2023 Bhagwant Kishore Memorial Educational Society. Act. Being aggrieved with the above order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), this appeal filed by assessee for adjudication. 4. Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

20 years condoned e) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Smt Kamalpreet Singh vs ITO in ITA Nos. 1750 & 1751 /Del/2023 dated 15.5.2024 - delay of 1670 days condoned f) Decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of M/s Saravana Stocks Investments (P) Ltd vs DCIT in ITA No. 2803 /Chny/ 2019 dated 12.4.2023 – delay of 1526 days condoned

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

20 years condoned e) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Smt Kamalpreet Singh vs ITO in ITA Nos. 1750 & 1751 /Del/2023 dated 15.5.2024 - delay of 1670 days condoned f) Decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of M/s Saravana Stocks Investments (P) Ltd vs DCIT in ITA No. 2803 /Chny/ 2019 dated 12.4.2023 – delay of 1526 days condoned

PRAMOD KUMAR TAYAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) MEERUT, MEERUT

Appeal is allowed

condone a delay of 1333 days in filing the assessee's lower appeal. The appeal concerns the disallowance of leave encashment claim under section 10(10AA) from Rs. 8,20

MAXX SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3499/Del/2023 (A.Y 2018-19)

condoned as per Section 10 of General Clauses Act. Further it is also observed that the assessee has no intention not to deposit the contribution of ESI & EPF well within the time, depositing the contribution very next day of Holiday proves the bona-fide of the Assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the authorities have committed error in disallowing the deposit

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

10. Since the above issue is squarely covered by the above decision, we are inclined to remit the issue back to the file of AO to consider the alternative plea of the assessee as per law after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” (emphasis supplied by us) 12.1 Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal