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

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

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

RAM DHAN BHUTANI,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11 Ram Dhan Bhutani, Ito, H. No. 1534, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Hisar Sector-14, Hisar Pan-Abqpb8764M (Appellant) (Respondent)

23-07-2016. To that also there was no reply by the Ld. CIT(A). I was, therefore, advised on contacting a professional at Delhi who is conversant with such matters that I ought to appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT on the same. Being a simple and a salaried person I have never had any occasion either to appeal

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav. Shri B.P. Jainand

condoned the delay in filing of return and observed in the order as under: “In Exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( The Act) , the central Board of direct taxes hereby authorizes the assessing Officer to admit the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 filed

M/S PRAVEEN INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav. Shri B.P. Jainand

condoned the delay in filing of return and observed in the order as under: “In Exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( The Act) , the central Board of direct taxes hereby authorizes the assessing Officer to admit the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 filed

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

23-12-2014.\n\n9. At the threshold of this appeal, the appellant submitted\napplication for condonation of delay in filing this appeal on\nPage 7 of 24\n\nITA No.- 7392/Del/2017\nM/s NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.\n\n08-12-2017 alongwith affidavit of Additional Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Special Range-6 New Delhi, relevant extract thereof as\nfollows

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

23, (1987) 66 STC 228(SC), 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185\n(SC), 1987 SCC (2) 107, JT 1987 (1) 537, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987(2)\nSCR 387, 1987 (1) SCALE 413], it was averred/held, as follows, by\nthe Hon'ble SupremeCourt:\n66\nIt is common knowledge that this court has been\nmaking a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted

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

23, (1987) 66 STC 228(SC), 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185\n(SC), 1987 SCC (2) 107, JT 1987 (1) 537, 1987 AIR 1353, 1987(2)\nSCR 387, 1987 (1) SCALE 413], it was averred/held, as follows, by\nthe Hon'ble SupremeCourt:\n66\nIt is common knowledge that this court has been\nmaking a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

condoned in view of the extraordinary directions issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 47. Even otherwise, the conduct of the Petitioner during the arbitral proceedings renders the present challenge wholly untenable. The Petitioner asserts that the mandate of the learned Arbitrator expired on 24.05.2022. Yet, the Application invoking Section 29A of the A&C Act was filed only

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

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

10-02-2012. The Tribunal while refusing to condone the dealy. Inter-alia, observed as under :- "In the case of Vedabai allas Vaijayanatbai Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) the Apex Court clearly laid down that the distinction must be made between a case where delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a private limited company who filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 129603/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010 the ld Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are complexity in the accounts of the assessee and in the interest of revenue its books

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

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (P) LTD.,,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