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

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

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

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

RRB ENERGY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 15, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 35/2AB) is allowable with reference to this expenditure only. Reliance placed by the Ld. AR on judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 174 Taxman 113 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sandan Vikas Ltd. (2011) 335 ITR 117(Del) does

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

GAYATRI SEWA SANSTHAN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee will get relief of INR 90 Lakhs of the loan taken from M/s

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Gayatri Sewa Sansthan Vs Dcit 155, G.T.Road, Circle-2(1)(1) Panchwati Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad U.P-201001. Pan-Aaatg1960H Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shivam Gupta, Adv. & Deepashree Rao, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of 19.11.2025 Pronouncement

condone the delay and take up the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed return of income on 31.08.2010, declaring income of INR 9,84,900/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the AO found that assessee has received loan of INR 90 Lakhs from M/s. Baldev Promoters

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

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

GAC MARINE LLC,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishragac Marine Llc Vs. Ito, Ward – 1(3)(2), 1St Floor, Ahip Palms, International Taxation, Plot No.242 & 243, New Delhi – 110 002 Phase-Iv, Gurgaon Haryana – 122 015 Pan : Aaecg 2882 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Singhal, Adv. & Ms. Mahima Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

condonation of delay in filing appeal and without affording any opportunity to the appellant. Learned CIT(A) erred in concluding without adjudicating examination of the relevant facts and legal precedents, that the appellant is a tax resident of UAE and the activities carried out by the appellant are not taxable in India as per the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA

RISHI RAJ JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is taken up for hearing on merits of the case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee's premises at D-70, Defence Colony, Delhi was searched on 26.07.2017 wherein jewellery worth Rs. 2,29,43,309/- was found out of which jewellery worth Rs.59

PCIT-07, DELHI vs. M/S WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.

117 days. 3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 135/2023 4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”] concerning Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:15.04.2023 13:55:33 Signature Not Verified

MANAV MALIK,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(2)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs Acit, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Apzpm1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

condoned. Prior to amendment to Rule 128(9) provided that Form 67 shall be furnished on or befoe the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) considered amendment in the Rule to be retrospective with a specific anterior date effective from 01.04.2022, the pre-amended sub-rule