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

3 of 22 4. It would be, therefore, appropriate to refer to the circumstances under which the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.3054/Del/2008, in order to appreciate the controversy in perspective. 5. The assessee was incorporated as a society on 10.05.1993 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Under the memorandum of association executed, the assessee claimed

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

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

M/S. NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Nokia Siemens Circle-18(2), Networks Pvt. Ltd.), 7Th Floor, Room No. 406, Building No. 9A, Dlf Cyber City, C.R. Building, Sector 25A, I.P. Estate, Gurgaon-122002 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaccn3871F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri T.M. Shiva Kumar, Cit Dr

124(3) of I.T.Act 1961), would make the mistake, if any, only a technical error covered by the provisions of S.292B of the Income Tax Act 1961. 14. DRP proceedings are continuation of assessment proceedings: The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has held that the AO can proceed

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

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 3

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

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

3) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Seth Gunmukh Singh v CIT [1944] 12 ITR 393 (Lahore) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). It was submitted that this kind of a defect is curable under Section 292B of the Act. It was submitted that in the facts of the case since

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

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

3) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Seth Gunmukh Singh v CIT [1944] 12 ITR 393 (Lahore) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). It was submitted that this kind of a defect is curable under Section 292B of the Act. It was submitted that in the facts of the case since

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

3) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Seth Gunmukh Singh v CIT [1944] 12 ITR 393 (Lahore) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). It was submitted that this kind of a defect is curable under Section 292B of the Act. It was submitted that in the facts of the case since

ASHWANI KUMAR AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJOURI GARDEN vs. ITO WARD 3(3), C.R. BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Chella Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

124(3) is concerned, it was submitted that it only provide for territorial jurisdictional which is not under challenge in the instant case. On the reliance of provisions of section 292BB, the ld AR submitted that the section saves those situation where notices are issued but had difficulties in getting served. The section does not save cases of non- issuance

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

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