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

delay in filing the application cannot be condoned. Consequently the claim for certificate of exemption under section 80G was also rejected. This order was passed on 24.9.2008. 13. It was against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions) that the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No.3054/Del/2008. The Tribunal examined the facts and the submissions in great

KARAN MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 27, , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarkaran Motors Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, A3-44, Third Floor, Central Circle-27, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaack0039L Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025

condone the delay in filing the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the 2nd appeal was filed by the Karan Motors Pvt. Ltd assessee on 19.06.2025 before the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi. 5. A letter dated 07.05.2025 was addressed by Assistant CIT, Central Circle-27, Delhi

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

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

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

BHAWNA PAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(7), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

124/-u/s 234A of the Act, interest of Rs. 13,65,856/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the appellant.” It is therefore prayed that, it be held that order disposing of the appeal expartee by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside It is therefore, prayed that, the addition

RAMESH GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

124 of the Act. The AO also did not comment anything on the said part response through email on 03.12.2019 in the assessment order. Later, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act at income of Rs.84,11,889/- wherein the entire bank deposits of Rs.84,11,889/-made during the relevant year was assessed under section

DR. SARVESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 57(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. I take the appeal being ITA No.2387/Del/2023 in the case of Jagdish Prasad as the lead case. 5. Brief facts of the case

JAGDISH PRASAD,DELHI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE 57(1), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. I take the appeal being ITA No.2387/Del/2023 in the case of Jagdish Prasad as the lead case. 5. Brief facts of the case

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed without any order as to

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

delay of 124 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. ITA 930/2010 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section

ASHOK MISHRA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-43(1), DELHI

In the result, the assesee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2021-22 Ashok Mishra, Vs. Ito, Ward 43(1), 81-82/3, Gali Bandook Wali, Civic Centre, Metro Market, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi – 110 002 Central Delhi Delhi – 110 006 (Pan: Apcpm0132J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) by CPC, Bangalore for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 8.7.2022. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as un-admited as there was a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts in brief qua the issue of disallowance of depreciation on windmill are that the assessee company has installed a Wind Mill Turbine at Kutch (Gujarat) at a cost

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts in brief qua the issue of disallowance of depreciation on windmill are that the assessee company has installed a Wind Mill Turbine at Kutch (Gujarat) at a cost

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts in brief qua the issue of disallowance of depreciation on windmill are that the assessee company has installed a Wind Mill Turbine at Kutch (Gujarat) at a cost