DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION

delay of 94 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. . ITA 7/2013, 331/2013, 268/2013 and 449/2013 . . . 1. A common issue arises for consideration in the aforesaid appeals. Hence, they are being decided by this common order. . 2. The issue raised by Revenue in these appeals pertains to interpretation of Section 11

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY

condonation of delay. In these two appeals and ITA No. 348/2014 filed against M/s Sanskriti Educational Society, notice has not been served on the said respondent, but as we were inclined to dismiss the Revenue‟s appeals, we have heard arguments on behalf of the Revenue. In ITA 240/2014 and ITA 406/2014, the respondents i.e. M/s Indraprastha Cancer Society

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

11. What were permissible under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) to be adjusted were, (i) only apparent arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying the return, (ii) loss carried forward, deduction allowance or relief, which was prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

11. What were permissible under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) to be adjusted were, (i) only apparent arithmetical errors in the return, accounts or documents accompanying the return, (ii) loss carried forward, deduction allowance or relief, which was prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

11\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\n8. Section 246A specifically provides for an appeal as against intimation issued\nunder section 143(1) of the Act. In the instant case, total income has been assessed\nat Rs.23,29,62,420/- as per the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act.\nTherefore, the cause

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condonation of delay U/S 11 9(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing in Form No.10CCB. The Assessing Officer sent the intimation under section 143(1) dated 11

UTTARANCHAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshuttaranchal Rural Development Vs. Ito, Agency, Exemption Circle, Panchayati Raj Bhawan, Ghaziabad Sahastrradhara Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaju0214A Assessee By : Shri S. B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

1) of the Act but the benefit of section 11 was not allowed and gross receipts of Rs.8559512/- has been taxed. 9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts are that the assessee filed its return of income on 23.02.2021. It is also not in dispute that the due date

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

11,94,917/-. 2) Since no additions u/s. 36(1)(va) could be done, as per the mandate of u/s. 143(1)(a) thus there was no adherence of relevant section and therefore, it is clear cut case of mistake of law and thus it is mistake apparent from record u/s. 54. 3) That the authorities below failed to appreciate

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

11,94,917/-. 2) Since no additions u/s. 36(1)(va) could be done, as per the mandate of u/s. 143(1)(a) thus there was no adherence of relevant section and therefore, it is clear cut case of mistake of law and thus it is mistake apparent from record u/s. 54. 3) That the authorities below failed to appreciate

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

condoned. In the instant case, as ascertained from the facts, the delay of 52 days from the prescribed due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) was attributable to genuine hardship and accordingly, such delay is liable to be ignored. 8.1 In view of the aforesaid discussions and by following the binding legal precedents, the addition made

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

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section 12A/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse?” 2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

11 of 24 ending with the assessment year during which the entire net worth of such company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulated losses. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, "net worth" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ga) of sub-section (1) of section 3 35 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions

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 11 for want of submission of Form 108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No. 273 dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay

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 11 for want of submission of Form 108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No. 273 dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay

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 11 for want of submission of Form 108. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that Form B shall be submitted electronically with effect from 1-4-2016 applicable for assessment year 2016-17 and as per CBDT Circular No. 273 dated 3-6 1970, CBDT had authorized jurisdictional Commissioner/Director of Income- tax to condone delay

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

1) of the Act is a debatable issue as evident from various case laws and such delay is condonable too as the CBDT, vide the above-mentioned 6 P.D.Memorial Trust Circular has already condoned the delay for two AYs. Thus, keeping in view the above, we hereby hold that the denial of claim of exemption under section 11

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or [(iia) the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account (excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets); or (iib) the amount withdrawn from revaluation reserve and credited to the profit and loss account, to the extent it does