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

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. Mr. Nikhil Sawhney 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assessee would be entitled to claim the long term capital loss on sale of shares through recognized stock exchange, where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been suffered and consequentially

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

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 7.8 As regards

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(25)(ii) of the Act in ITRs nor the assessee was a registered Trust or Institution under section 12A of the Act. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) prayed for condonation of delay

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(25)(ii) of the Act in ITRs nor the assessee was a registered Trust or Institution under section 12A of the Act. 5. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) prayed for condonation of delay

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay in filing of appeal; the mistake must be such as may be made by a professional Page 10 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. lawyer well-versed and experienced in law. If an assessee is genuinely aggrieved by an order referred to in Section 253(1) of I.T. Act, and wishes

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

5. The issue of threat to the personal security of the appellant was only an action intended to avoid the process of law for non-compliance of the legal process. Whenever the need arose, protection was given by the Mumbai Police; 6. The alternative suggested for questioning the appellant though video conferencing was not a meaningful one inasmuch

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 80G was not within the knowledge of the governing body of the society, that it was only after being cornered that the assessee came forward in February, 2006 to file the returns and in these circumstances the assessee‟s explanation for the inordinate delay cannot be accepted. The DIT (Exemptions) further observed that it was part of the duty

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 80G was not within the knowledge of the governing body of the society, that it was only after being cornered that the assessee came forward in February, 2006 to file the returns and in these circumstances the assessee‟s explanation for the inordinate delay cannot be accepted. The DIT (Exemptions) further observed that it was part of the duty

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 80G was not within the knowledge of the governing body of the society, that it was only after being cornered that the assessee came forward in February, 2006 to file the returns and in these circumstances the assessee‟s explanation for the inordinate delay cannot be accepted. The DIT (Exemptions) further observed that it was part of the duty

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good

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

section 253(3A) of the Act, the\nlimitation for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal expire\non 21.02.2015 and therefore, the present accompanying\nappeal is delayed by 1021 days.\n\n4) The matter regarding filing of appeal in the impugned case\nfor AY 2010-11 got missed due to the reason for this omission\nare as follows:-oversight which

FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF MICRO ENTERPRISES,GURUGRAM vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhvs. Cit(Exemptions), Foundation For Advancement Of Micro Chandigarh Enterprises, Unit No. 701 To 711, 7Th Floor, Unitech Commercial, Tower 2, Sector-45, Gurugram, Haryana- 122003 Pan :Aadcf6999F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh Wadhwa, Fca Department By Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr

section 10(23C) of the Act, after placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "5. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of All Angels Educational Society (supra) while considering the issue whether the Id. CIT (Exemption) has power to condone the delay

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

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

10 could not be filed in the specified time for AY 2016-17, which was the first year of e-filing of these forms. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form No. 9A and Form No.10 for AY 2016-17 may be condoned under section 119(2) (b) of the Act. 5

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

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards