CIT vs. ELEGANT TRAVELS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

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

condonation of delay in filing ITA NO. 453/2012 (CIT v. Arvinder Singh) it was claimed that there was only 22 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was stated in the said application that initially no appeal was preferred against the impugned order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT as at that stage “it was considered more appropriate

CIT vs. ARVINDER SINGH

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

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

condonation of delay in filing ITA NO. 453/2012 (CIT v. Arvinder Singh) it was claimed that there was only 22 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was stated in the said application that initially no appeal was preferred against the impugned order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT as at that stage “it was considered more appropriate

ZTE CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

DCIT, INT. TAX.,.CIRCLE GURGAON, GURGAON vs. ZTE CORPORATION , CHINA

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

ZTE CORPORATION,CHINA vs. JCIT (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

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

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

MOHD. JAWED,BIJNOR vs. ITO WARD - 3(3), BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

section 271(l)(c) are not applicable. 3. That this vary fact was ignored by the learned CIT(Appeal), that penalty was imposed on the basis of estimate of income and so the estimated profit @8%. Income assessed was based on estimate basis. As Assessee’s profit was Rs. 158520/-. against Rs. 430010/- declared. In the order of assessment

DCIT, DELHI vs. ALAKA MARS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Delay of 17 days in filing of the Revenue's instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself set into

MOHD ABID,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

120 days, verbally confirmed to the appellant that the application U/s 154 cannot be rectified from their end and should file an appeal against it, 4. On the basis of facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the Hon'ble Ld. Commissioner of Income l ax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appeal was filed late because of error

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. HEAVEN SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.

120 days. 3. Given the nature of delay and the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA Nos.552/2023 & 553/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 [ITA No.552/2023] and AY 2012-13 [ITA No.553/2023]. 6. Via the above-captioned appeals

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 6 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia 8. The Ground No. 1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 9. Ground No. 2 is regarding addition made on account of treating Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the treatment of Long Term

CIT vs. AAR BEE INDUSTRIES

condonation of delay applications have been filed. 2013:DHC:3042-DB ITA No.148/12, 149/12 & 2/13 Page 2 of 13 2. When these matters came up for hearing before this Bench, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent / assessee. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that this court did not have jurisdiction