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

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

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 (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

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PEGASUS SOFTECH PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

10. The Revenue in its appeal has raised several grounds in which the Revenue has challenged the Order of Ld. CIT(A) in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A, in holding that A.O. could not have proceeded to frame the assessment under section 153A, in the absence of any incriminating material