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

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREIGN TRADE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE- EXEMPT 1(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 4944/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2023-24) Indian Institute Of Foreign Deputy Commissioner Of Trade, Income Tax, B-21, Iift Bhawan, Qutab Vs Circle Exempt 1(1), Institutional Area, Shaheed Delhi, Jeet Singh Marg, Civic Centre, New Delhi- New Delhi-110016. 110002. Pan- Aaati0438E Assessee Revenue

condonation of delay under section 119(2) (b) of the Act in filing of Form 108 and taking into consideration

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. 1961- Central Board of Direct Taxes instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 108

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPATMENT BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. 1961- Central Board of Direct Taxes instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 108

TATHAGAT,NEW DELHI vs. AO CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 119 of the Income-tax Act. 1961- Central Board of Direct Taxes instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay in filing Form No. 108

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 9. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act as the order of Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue apart from that there exist

M/S. H.M. AGRIEXPORTS PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. PR. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2012-13 H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, Hm Agriexports, Muzaffarnagar. Chilkana Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 (Pan: Aacch5350D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Meeta Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2018 O R D E R

condone the delay of 58 days and admit the appeal for regular hearing. 6.0 The Ld. AR drew our attention to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and also placed on record a copy of the order sheet of the original assessment proceedings and submitted that vide order sheet entry dated 25.8.2014, the AO had made

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)

108 along with return of income. The appellant/assessee uploaded the audit report within a week of filing return of income. It cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELCO INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay in filing and in re filing the appeals is condoned. 2. ,The applications stand disposed of. ITA 116/2016 ITA 917/2015 ITA 74/2016 3. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 16 : June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELCO INDIA PVT. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay in filing and in re filing the appeals is condoned. 2. ,The applications stand disposed of. ITA 116/2016 ITA 917/2015 ITA 74/2016 3. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 16 : June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter

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

THE VEDIC CULTURE CENTRE,DELHI vs. ITO WARD(EXEMPTION)-2(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.780/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Vedic Culture Centre Income Tax Officer, 7, Institutional Area Ward (Exemption)-2(3), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 Vs. Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaatt0811G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

108 even though the same was available at the time of passing order u/s 143(1) of the Act; c. taxing the gross receipts of Rs.75,70,590/- without allowing revenue expenditure incurred in a sum of Rs.67,41,795/- on the activities of the Assessee: d. determining taxable income at Rs.75,60,590/-against NIL return; The above actions

P D MEMORIAL TRUST,DELHI vs. DLC-CA-2, RANGE- 48, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

delay in filing/uploading the audit report in form 10B. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: “5.1 The CPC has issued a communication to the appellant on 06-Oct- 2022 stating that The Trust or Institution registered u/s 12A/12AA/12AB has not E-fled the Audit Report in Form 108 one month prior to the due date

BRIJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MEERUT vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2011-12 Brij Educational Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow A-162, Defence Colony, C.R. Building, Ito, Meerut-250001 (Up) I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aabtb4074C) New Delhi - 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 263 of the Act and rightly directed the AO to adjudicate the issue afresh, which does not need any interference and needs to be upheld. 4.3. At the threshold, we note that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. For the condonation of delay assessee has filed the condonation application alongwith supporting affidavit

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delayed payment by the purchaser which assessee has calculated to be @ 24%. Nowhere, as held by the Ld. CIT(A), it has been found or there is even mention in any seized document that interest rate so calculated has been realised from the said party. The AO has made the addition on the ground that, section 132(4A) raises