DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

delay was condoned and the trust should be granted registration from inception. 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 11 of 22 14. While narrating the sequence of the events leading to the arrest of A.K. Sikri, the Tribunal took note of the genesis of the entire affair which started from

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay in filing appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate and, therefore, the assessee could not be prejudiced on account of an ignorance or an error committed by professional engaged by the assessee: - I.T.A.Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 “1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) VS ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay in filing appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate and, therefore, the assessee could not be prejudiced on account of an ignorance or an error committed by professional engaged by the assessee: - I.T.A.Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 “1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) VS ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation

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 delay is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the Auditors who conducted the audit of the society, bonafidely believed that society was not required to obtain and file the audit report in form 10B as the total income being NIL was less than Rs. 2,50,000/- and due to confusion in interpretation of law, filed audit report

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) – delay of 1754 days condoned b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) – delay of 1754 days condoned b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay

PHOOL SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground Nos

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiphool Singh, Vs. Acit, 147, Harsukh Apartment, Circle-38(1), Sec-7, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aatps3016K (Appellant) (Respondent)

112 days is not explained. Page 2 of 9 4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also gone through the reasons of delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee has given the cogent reason that the order of the ld CIT(A) was inadvertently placed by the office assistant and was traced at the time of finalizing

GULSHAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

112/- on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s 194H, without appreciating the fact that it's the first year of appellant having turnover exceeding the monetary limits specified u/s 44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961. (iii) That the above disallowance and addition has been confirmed merely relying on the assessment order. (iv) That the addition has been confirmed

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

ABHISHEK MALHOTRA ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-73(1), DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee are disposed off and the Appeal filed by the assessee

112 days in filing the present appeal, the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay contending that the delay deserves to be condoned, in view of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10/01/2022 made in suo-moto writ petition (C) No. 3 of 2022 (In re:-cognizance for extension of limitation). Considering the Covid situations, lockdown