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

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

46,100/- most of which are cash entries varying from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The assessee society filed its return of income on 29.08.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 16,372/-. The assessment u/s 143(3)/147 was completed on 22.02.2013 at Rs. 10,29,730/-. 6. For the A.Y. 2009-10, the assessment u/s 143(3) has been completed

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 1,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

46,100/- most of which are cash entries varying from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The assessee society filed its return of income on 29.08.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 16,372/-. The assessment u/s 143(3)/147 was completed on 22.02.2013 at Rs. 10,29,730/-. 6. For the A.Y. 2009-10, the assessment u/s 143(3) has been completed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ODIA SAMAJ, NEW DELHI

In the result Cross objections raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 27 days in filing the instant cross objections by assessee is condoned. 3 The Revenue has filed the appeal with the following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2020-21 has erred in allowing and directing the AO to re- compute

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)

46 CCH 0736 Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC)” B R Hospital and Research Institute vs. ITO 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted as under:- “1. A perusal of the section itself shows that the first appellate authority has been specifically excluded from the power to condone any delay

THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

46. (SC)]. It was therefore argued that since neither\nAO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the said aspects regarding the\nnotice under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, therefore,\nthe appeal be allowed and the assessment order be quashed.\n7. We havealso heard the Ld. DR who was supplied with the paper book,\nand after

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. M/S INSTITUTE OF LIVER AND BILIARY SCIENCES

delay in filing and re- filing is condoned. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:17.07.2023 11:37:46 Signature Not Verified ITA 362/2023 Page 2 of 7 3. The above-captioned applications are, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 362/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 5. The appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2021 passed

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

AVA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3401/Del/2024, (A.Y.2019-20)

condoning the delay in filing the Appeal of 35 days despite the Assessee submitting in response to deficiency letter issued by the NFAC that delay in filing of appeal was on account of initial advice of a senior counsel to file a writ before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which writ was withdrawn on the advice of the High

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI -7 vs. RAMA HYGIENIC PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.

Section 5 of the limitation act seeking condonation of delay of 46 days in re-filing ITA 141/2026, ITA 142/2026 and ITA 143/2026. CM APPL. 11607/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 143/2026 7. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay is condoned. 8. Applications stand allowed. ITA 141/2026 ITA 142/2026 ITA 143/2026 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-7 vs. RAMA HYGIENE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.

Section 5 of the limitation act seeking condonation of delay of 46 days in re-filing ITA 141/2026, ITA 142/2026 and ITA 143/2026. CM APPL. 11607/2026 (delay in filing) in ITA 143/2026 7. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay is condoned. 8. Applications stand allowed. ITA 141/2026 ITA 142/2026 ITA 143/2026 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

46,530.85 Total 1,05,025.26 20,10,89,435.60 Total 1,05,025.26 20,10,89,435.60 TRADING AND MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31st MARCH 2009 Particulars Qty Amount (Rs.) Particulars Qty Amount (Rs.) To Opening Stock 3,309.23 78,16,290.00 By Sales 1,42,992.11 34,60,30,917.00 To Purchases/ Manufacturing

SHIV PRATAP SINGH KUNWAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) MEERUT, RANGE-14, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Shiv Pratap Singh Kunwar, Vs Jurisdictional Assessing 508, Begum Bagh, Meerut, Officer, Circle-1(1)(1), Uttar Pradesh-250001 Range-14, Meerut, Pan-Afmpk3273Q Uttar Pradesh-250001 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Hemant Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2018-19/10029654 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Pertaining To Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Security Agency. The Appellant Filed His Return Of Income On 17.08.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 46,84,309/- & The Same Was Assessed U/S 143(1) On 11-12-2020 At The Income Of Rs.87,33,921/- Wherein The Cpc Made The Disallowance On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. 3. Against This Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Ld.Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Vide Impugned Order Dated 29.11.2023 Thus, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

46,84,309/- and the same was assessed u/s 143(1) on 11-12-2020 at the income of Rs.87,33,921/- wherein the CPC made the disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. ASCENT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Ita No:- 3734/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022)

section 11 merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements of various courts it is held that appellant cannot be denied benefit of claiming deduction of application of income of Rs 46,92,777/- and also accumulation of Rs. 3,23,632/- being 15% of income. The requirement of filing Form 10B in time

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

delay in audit and the assessee has reasonable and bona fide cause for not filing return in time, and tribunal concurrently held that assessee was entitle to claim specifically computed deduction, assessee was not to be burdened with taxes, which it was not otherwise not liable to page and the law. We also find that Delhi Tribunal in Fibrefill Engineers