PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

SANJEEV MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual filed its return of income and while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act claimed tax relief on the income earned outside India and assessee has submitted details of income earned outside India

SUPERTECH REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

125 days in filing the appeal and admitted the same for disposal on merit. 3. That the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) refusing to condone the delay is against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments notably in Collector land Acquisition v. Mst Katizi 2 Supertcch Realtors

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. ASCENT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Ita No:- 3734/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022)

condoning the delay in filing the Audit Report by observing as under: “the due date of filing return of income was 31st October, 2022 which has been fulfilled by appellant as return was filed on 07.11.2022. the due date of filing Form 10B was 30.09.2022, being one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

125/- for the A.Y. 2008-09 to Rs.34,60,30,917/- for the current A.Y. c. The AO also completely ignored the submissions that the trade margin had come down due to focus given to increasing the sales volume and also due to tough competition in the industry. Even though the Assessee time and again submitted that

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

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

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC. USA,PUNE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC.,CALIFORINA vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

M/S DIGITE INC. USA,USA vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

KASREE DEVI,MAWANA MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(3), AYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeal and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. For the sake of clarity the submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: “The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order

JAGBIR SAROHA,SONIPAT vs. ITO, SONIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

125 days) the appeal, in filling the appeal. It is prayed before your honour the delay in filling the appeal may kindly be condoned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts without considering the reply of the assessee that ITR submitted in response to notice under section

MANGA,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-2 PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 125 days in filing the appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

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

Section 57(iii) of the Act and this cannot be granted since the INC did not place on record the factual basis for such a claim. 124. The legal position is that no deduction can be allowed with respect to the expenditure incurred by the political party for any purpose whatsoever if it fails to comply with the basic requirements

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

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

Section 57(iii) of the Act and this cannot be granted since the INC did not place on record the factual basis for such a claim. 124. The legal position is that no deduction can be allowed with respect to the expenditure incurred by the political party for any purpose whatsoever if it fails to comply with the basic requirements

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

Section 57(iii) of the Act and this cannot be granted since the INC did not place on record the factual basis for such a claim. 124. The legal position is that no deduction can be allowed with respect to the expenditure incurred by the political party for any purpose whatsoever if it fails to comply with the basic requirements

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 4 vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal is DigitallySigned By:SAHIL SHARMA Signing Date:14.10.2023 15:34:29 Signature Not Verified MAT.APP. (F.C.) 301/2023 Page 2 of 7 hereby condoned. 5. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 301/2023 6. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section

CHANDAN SINGH YADAV,BADAUN vs. ITO WARD - 2(3), BADAUN

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargchandan Singh Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vill. & Post Khandwa, Tehsil Ward-2(3), Bilsi, Badaun Badaun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cbhps9366K

condonation of delay is allowed. 4. Ld counsel of assessee submitted that the assessee does not want to press the legal ground Nos.1 to 4, hence same are dismissed as not pressed. 5. Remaining effective ground Nos. 5 to 7 of the assessee reads as under:- “5. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case