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

12. Both these questions were answered in the affirmative. According to the learned single judge there was sufficient actionable material before the Regional Passport Officer to exercise his authority under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act. The actionable material could be received from other wings of the Government as in the present case it was received from

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

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

12 of the act.” 4.1. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust [2014] 360 ITR 598 (All), in para 11 of the order has observed as under: “11. We do not find any error of law in the order of the Tribunal. When a request by way of letter

CHURCH'S AUXILIARY FOR SOCIAL ACTION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

condonation on merit and the SLP filed by the Revenue against the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the society is registered under FCRA and is entitled to receive the foreign contribution for charitable activities and therefore out of the purview of section 2

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

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of 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

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

SHREE KHATHU SHYAM JANGID BRAHMAN DHARAMSHALA,GURGAON vs. ITO(E) WARD, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Khathu Shyam Jangid Brahman Vs. Ito (E), Dharamshala, Ward, C/O Rra Taxindia, Faridabad. D-28, South Exension, Part I, New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aajts0636B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2022 Order

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A(2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

12) TMI 745 (Delhi High Court) (iii). Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DGIT, 341 ITR 247 (Del.) (iv). Dalmia (R) vs. CIT, 236 ITR 480 (SC) (v). CIT vs. Pawan Gupta, 318 ITR 322 (Del.) (vi). DCIT vs. M/s. Silver Line 2014(10) TMI 141 ITAT Delhi (vii). CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, 336 ITR 247 (Del.) (viii

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

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and Page 8 of 12 ITA No. 455/D/16 Ghaziabad Development Authority cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest then can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every