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

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 34(3) of the Act”. “41. The question, which still requires to be answered, is whether a reasonable explanation has been given with regard to delay of 258 days in the refiling of the Objections. Since this delay crosses the frontier of the statutory limit, that is, three months and thirty days, we need to consider whether sufficient cause

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. MOUNTAIN TOUCH BUILDERS P. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 34(3) of the Act”. OMP No.388/2012 Page 4 of 8 “41. The question, which still requires to be answered, is whether a reasonable explanation has been given with regard to delay of 258 days in the refiling of the Objections. Since this delay crosses the frontier of the statutory limit, that is, three months and thirty days

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

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

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

34,91,383/- and by doing so the Ld. DRP ignored the fact that\nthe case was not covered by exception carved out by section 9(1)\n(vii) (b) of the Act.\n\n8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after\ninordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with endorsement

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

34,480/-. The assessee claimed 10B exemption of Rs. 11,97,02,143/- for its Kundli unit-II alone. The assessment order was completed on 29.12.2011 after disallowing 10B deduction of Rs. 11,97,02,143/-. The AO held that the assessee is not entitled for 10B deduction as the condition laid down as per the proviso to section

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

34,480/-. The assessee claimed 10B exemption of Rs. 11,97,02,143/- for its Kundli unit-II alone. The assessment order was completed on 29.12.2011 after disallowing 10B deduction of Rs. 11,97,02,143/-. The AO held that the assessee is not entitled for 10B deduction as the condition laid down as per the proviso to section

MAHENDER MALIK,HISAR vs. ITO,WARD -(1), HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

delay of 3 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action assessing the assessee’s interest component

BALVINDER SINGH,KARNAL, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KARNAL, KARNAL ,HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

delay of 283 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities action assessing the assessee’s interest component

DAULAT RAM,REWARI vs. ITO, REWARI (JAO), REWARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Daulat Ram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Anu Jain & Co., First Rewari (Jao) Floor, Near Palika Complex, Model Town, Rewari Pan: Avppr6711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Monoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Delay of 339 days in filing the asseessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities action

SHASTRI LAL,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

34. It is thus evident that the view taken by the Ld. AO that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act received by the assessee is exempt under section 10(37) of the Act is not contrary to law. 12. We notice that in CBDT Circular No. 5, dated 03.06.2010 reported

MAWASI,HARYANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Delay of 111 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2 ITA No. 5020/Del./2025 Mawasi 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness

GANGA BISHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Delay of 1 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2 ITA No. 2179/Del./2025 Ganga Bishan 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

delay in filing of appeal before CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) may kindly be condoned and the appeal be directed to be decided on merits or alternatively should be restored back to the Assessing officer (A0) as the assessment order has been passed under section 144 of the Act. 3. The CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

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