SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

Section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond control of party invoking aid of provisions. In the case of T. Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383, Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad has held that in granting indulgence and condonation delay in filing appeal, it must be proved beyond shadow of doubt that assessee was diligent and was not guilty

WELGROW HOTELS CONCEPTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-78(4), DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI G.S.PANNU (President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

delay of 115 days in filing the above captioned appeals are condoned. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos.1869 & 1870/Del/2023 Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer passed orders u/s 201(1)/201(1A) computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 38,35,746/- on 26/03/2021 for Assessment

WELGROW HOTELS CONCEPTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-78(4), DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI G.S.PANNU (President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

delay of 115 days in filing the above captioned appeals are condoned. Page 2 of 6 ITA Nos.1869 & 1870/Del/2023 Welgrow Hotels Concepts (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer passed orders u/s 201(1)/201(1A) computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 38,35,746/- on 26/03/2021 for Assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. NATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE OF INDIA

115 days. 3. For the reasons given, and having regard to the period of delay involved in the application, we are inclined to condone the delay. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 169/2023 1/3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE PRE- PRESS & PRINT PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

115 taxmann.com 345 (Madras) 9. He then referred to the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. vs UOI [2016] 289 CTR 602(Kar.) in para 10.14 onwards and concluded para 10.15, which reads as under:- Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 “10.15 On perusal of the decisions of various High courts