MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

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

25. We may state that even if the term “sufficient cause” has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction is normally to introduce the concept of “reasonableness” as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation

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

ii) Whether the Regional Passport Officer exercised his powers in the interest of the general public? 12. Both these questions were answered in the affirmative. According to the learned single judge there was sufficient actionable material before the Regional Passport Officer to exercise his authority under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act. The actionable material could be received

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

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

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)

condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 6. The main grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition on account of arrears of gratuity and the arrears of leave encashment received from the State Government after retirement. 7. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was an employee of the Chaudhary Charan Singh

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

25. We may state that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction is normally to introduce the concept of "reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation

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

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

25 of 48 (III) If the award is not made within the stipulated period of 12 months or the extended period of 6 months, the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate17. (IV) This termination is subject to the power of the Court to extend the period18. (V) The „Court‟ under Section 29A shall be the Civil Court of ordinary

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

ii) The terms "sufficient cause should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy andpurpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied inproper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should notbe given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

ii) 167 ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. “The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in the meaningful manner which sub serves the needs to justice - that being the life - purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

ii) 167 ITR 471 (SC) Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. “The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in the meaningful manner which sub serves the needs to justice - that being the life - purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that

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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTER.T vs. M/S MODILUFT LTD.

The appeals are allowed to the extent that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

ii) Both the lease rent and the fee for technical services were business profits of Lufthansa, inasmuch as the lease of the aircrafts was with the operational staff. (iii) Having held that lease rent and fee for technical services was business profits, the Tribunal relying upon Tekniskil (Sendirian) Berhard v. Commissioner of Income Tax 1996 (222) ITR 551 (AAR) held

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply