PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs. E-FUNDS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

delay in re-filing the respective appeals is condoned. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA No. 607/2015 & 608/2015 3. These two appeals by the Revenue are under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟). 4. At the outset, Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue states that page 6 of the memorandum of appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

ROOP V K JAIN FOUNDATION,MEWAT vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits. 5. While reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(E) has not considered the information / evidence brought on record in correct prospective and denied the registration u/s 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. 6. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee

ADARSH PARAMEDICAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION,BHIWANI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 10A and the set-off of brought-forward losses, hence, there was no Indian tax liability against which the foreign taxes withheld in Japan can be credited. 14. We find that while the Mumbai Tribunal in the Bank of India case grappled with the question of following a non-jurisdictional High Court being not binding judicial precedent, and arrived

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD,GURUGRAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 10A and the set-off of brought-forward losses, hence, there was no Indian tax liability against which the foreign taxes withheld in Japan can be credited. 14. We find that while the Mumbai Tribunal in the Bank of India case grappled with the question of following a non-jurisdictional High Court being not binding judicial precedent, and arrived

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion. 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented by sufficient

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NUTECH INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

5), report of an accountant in the prescribed form 56F is filed as specified under rule 16D of IT Rules 1962. ix. As per section 10A(8) of the Act, return of income is filed within the time limit specified u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.08.2008. 3.3 From the above it is evident that all the conditions stipulated

PRACHEEN SHRI AGGARWAL DIGAMBER JAIN PANCHAYAT DELHI,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed as indicated above for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e. 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

10A of the Act is restored to the file of the TPO/ AO, the another issues relating to corporate matters should also be decided by the TPO/ AO afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. As regards to the issues raised on the transfer pricing all matters