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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

2(1)(e)23. Digitally Signed By:NEERU Signing Date:04.04.2026 12:18:42 Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 73/2024 Page 26 of 48 14. Section 29A of the Act does not, in terms, bar an application for extension of the mandate of an arbitrator in the event of the delivery of an award. There is no such prescription anywhere

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

condone the delay. In view of this difficulty, we are unable to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the assessee. We have also gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the assessee. That was a case where the assessee was denied the benefit of Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

condone the delay. In view of this difficulty, we are unable to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the assessee. We have also gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the assessee. That was a case where the assessee was denied the benefit of Section

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND S5, SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXMP 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

condoned the delay in the case of the appellant vide order F.No. CIT(E)/119(2)(b)/2019-20/60/3132 dated 26.02.2020 A copy of the order was furnished by the appellant during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the delay in filing Form 10 stands addressed. Ground 2 is therefore allowed. 5.8. Ground 3 is discussed below: Section 11

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND 5 SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

condoned the delay in the case of the appellant vide order F.No. CIT(E)/119(2)(b)/2019-20/60/3132 dated 26.02.2020 A copy of the order was furnished by the appellant during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the delay in filing Form 10 stands addressed. Ground 2 is therefore allowed. 5.8. Ground 3 is discussed below: Section 11

NATIONAL CULTURE FUND,FIFTH FLOOR D-BLOCK vs. AO WARD-EXEMPATION-2(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

11(2) without giving an opportunity for Condonation of Delay within the circular of CBDT No 7/2017 dated 20.12.2018 issued after the date of the assessment Order 17.12.2018. 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee is a national fund created, by a notification of Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Culture) on 28/11/1996 and registered under section

NATIONAL CULTURE FUND,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

11(2) without giving an opportunity for Condonation of Delay within the circular of CBDT No 7/2017 dated 20.12.2018 issued after the date of the assessment Order 17.12.2018. 3. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee is a national fund created, by a notification of Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Culture) on 28/11/1996 and registered under section

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

11. Being aggrieved by the revocation order dated 03.03.2011 as also the appellate order dated 31.10.2011, the appellant filed the said writ petition (W.P.(C) 376/2012) seeking, inter alia, a writ of certiorari quashing the said orders. A learned single Judge of this court by virtue of his judgment dated 16.01.2013 dismissed the said writ petition. According to the learned

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. CANARA BANK RELIEF AND WELFARE SOCIETY

condone the delay. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:21.12.2023 17:10:54 Signature Not Verified ITA 712/2023 Page 2 of 8 ITA 712/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail

SALWAN EDUCATION TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, EXMP 2(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Salwan Education Trust, Dcit, Salwan Schools Campus, Pt Exemption 2(1), Girdhari Lal Salwan Marg, Vs Delhi, Rajinder Nagar, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110060, New Delhi-110002. Pan- Aacts9741A Assessee Revenue

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the application disposed of 2. The only question which the revenue proposes to raise for the determination of this court is whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in granting exemption under section 11

RASHID MEMORIAL WELFARE TRUST,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishirashid Memorial Welfare Trust, Ito, Salmahakan, Khurja, Exemption Ward, Vs. Bulandshahr, Ghaziabad Pan:Aaatr5957K (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay on the part of the trust to give notice of such accumulation. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that the assessee-trust had complied with all the requirements stipulated by the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act. 7. Heard Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt, learned standing counsel, on behalf of Mr. B. B. Naik, for the applicant-Revenue. Inviting

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

condone the delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

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

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

condonation of the delay in filing Form 10B and to claim the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Page 2

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

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income

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

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income