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

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

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

10(37) and by insertion of sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai

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

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

37(1) of\nthe Act for the years in appeal in computing the total income\nunder the normal provisions of the Act as revenue in nature, which is\nused as working capital by the company except an amount of\nRs.41.02 crores. As the assessee has utilised 92% of receipts on\naccount of public issue on working capital and hence

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

37(1) of\nthe Act for the years in appeal in computing the total income\nunder the normal provisions of the Act as revenue in nature, which is\nused as working capital by the company except an amount of\nRs.41.02 crores. As the assessee has utilized 92% of receipts on\naccount of public issue on working capital and hence

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

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

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

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

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

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

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

GD FOODS AND MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

37,001/- made u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act on account of late payment of employee contribution towards EPF and ESIC beyond the due date specified in the respective Acts, but before the due date as defined under section 139 of the Act, under the intimation /order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated

NTPC BHEL POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-18(2), DELHI

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

condone the delay of 852 days in filing the appeal and admitted for adjudication. 6.The brief facts of the case are that assessee is EPC Contractor engaged to have certain preliminary site enabling assets for 6 facilitating project construction of 500MW unit Power Plant at site. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30-09-2015 declaring loss

SATVINDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), 37, New Delhi. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 2 Satvinder Singh Vs ITO “1. That the appellate order as passed is against law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 143(1) in the facts and circumstances of the case of appellant. 6. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019 disallowing application of income of Rs. 7,02,026/- without appreciating that details of Audit Report u/s 10B was provided in return, hence claim

NITIN KUMAR,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

delayed of 161 days in filing appeal is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. The sole ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,07,526/- being 50% of interest on enhance compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received

PILOT INDUSTRIES LTD.,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE -19 DELHI , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Asstt. Year: 2018-19

37 of the Act and further disallowed Rs. 6,80,782/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act vide assessment order dated 01-10-2009. As against the assessment order dated 01.10.2019 the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 480 days. The assessee while preferring the appeal before