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

condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registration under section 12A cannot

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registration under section 12A cannot

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

12 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. and negligence; condonation of delay has been sought on fanciful and concocted grounds. We do not wish to promote the notion that ITAT is required to condone the delay in filing of appeal even when there is complete absence of sufficient cause for the delay. We wish

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

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. 5.8 As regards

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

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

Section 34(3) of the Act”. “41. The question, which still requires to be answered, is whether a reasonable explanation has been given with regard to delay of 258 days in the refiling of the Objections. Since this delay crosses the frontier of the statutory limit, that is, three months and thirty days, we need to consider whether sufficient cause

B.B. NIGADE AND SONS AND UMA CONSTRUCTIONS JV,KOLHAPUR vs. TDS GHAZIABAD, TDS CPC GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4435/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम B.B.Nigade & Sons & Uma Tds, Cpc Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions Jv, Vs. Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, H.No.157A Nirmitee Bungalow, U.P. Plot No.64, Vaibhav Housing Soc., Ujalaiwadi, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aabfb4721A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

12 of 2024, the declaration is hereby rejected. The CIT's decision under DTVSV 2024 is final and not appealable. Thereafter we have decided to file appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, We were unaware of the remedy before 1TAT, Due to above facts the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time and resulted in a delay

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

12 ITA No. 455/D/16 Ghaziabad Development Authority we deem it fit to condone the delay of 1875 days and admit the appeal. 5.4 As far as the merits of the appeal are concerned, it is seen that according to the newly introduced provisions of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

12. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient\ncause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay\nin question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a\ncondition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested\nin the court by Section

CIT vs. MOUNTAIN TOUCH BUILDERS P. LTD

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

Section 34 of the Act wherein the prescribed period of limitation is provided. The application is, therefore, dismissed. OMP No.388/2012 In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in re-filing, being I.A.No.7646/2012, the present petition is dismissed. (MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE APRIL 12

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

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

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

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping