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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

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

GOODVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 153C/144 ITA No.- 3327/Del/2024 Goodview Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making addition of Rs. 9254300/- when the relevant information was duly placed before him. 7 The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw

HILLVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

section 153C/144 ITA No.- 3326/Del/2024 Hillview Technologies Pvt. Ltd. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in making addition of Rs 9257404/- when the relevant information was duly placed before him. The Appellant craves leave to add. amend alter vary and / or withdraw

CIT vs. ASHOKA MARKETING LTD

delay between 13th September, 2005 to 18th January, 2011. After the order under Section 127 was passed on 17th March, 2010, the Assessing Officer, Delhi should have also taken steps to ensure that the appeal was filed or to get hold of the details in case appeal had not been preferred. The application for condonation

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT (I) P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Panalpine World Vs. Addl. Cit, Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-7, 5Th Floor, Orchid Business New Delhi Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Panalpine World Special Range-7, Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Plot No. 227/2, Dhulsiras, Dwarka, Sector-24, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent)

127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under section 12 7 for the same assessment year(s)." 9. For completeness, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT

PANALPINA WORLD TRANSPORT INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Panalpine World Vs. Addl. Cit, Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-7, 5Th Floor, Orchid Business New Delhi Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Panalpine World Special Range-7, Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Plot No. 227/2, Dhulsiras, Dwarka, Sector-24, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent)

127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under section 12 7 for the same assessment year(s)." 9. For completeness, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT

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

SEEMA,DELHI vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal without giving and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in any case not appreciating sufficient cause on part of the assessee for such delay, being for reasons and circumstances beyond it's control. 3. That the assessee preferred the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC aggrieved

DEVENDER KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

127/- in the Bank A/c of the assessee maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Morta, Ghaziabad. Based upon the AIR information, the case of the assessee was selected for 2 ITA.No.124/Del./2021 Shri Devender Kumar, Ghaziabad. scrutiny under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and statutory notices under section 148 and 142(1) dated 10.03.2016 and 17.05.2016 were

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 69A has no applicability in the facts I.T.A.No.2252/Del/2024 and circumstances of the case. 7. That under the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as much as in fact as he has failed to appreciate the submissions of the appellant made vide reply dated 12-12-2019 along with which all necessary

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

DCIT CC-6 vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD,

In the result, all 11 appeals of the Revenue and 9 cross objections of the respondent/assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaco 69/Del/2009, Co 237, 238/Del/2009, (In Ita Nos. 1504, 3519, 3653/Del/2008) Ays: 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 M/S. Sahara India Financial Vs. Dcit, Corporation Ltd, Central Circle-6, Kapoorthala Complex, Ali New Delhi Ganj, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs8698C

section 127 for the same assessment year(s).” [Emphasized by us] 8. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. MSPL Ltd. (supra) has reiterated the legal position that the seat of Tribunal and/or jurisdiction of concerned Hon‟ble High Court would depend upon where seat of the Assessing Officer who has passed the assessment order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, all 11 appeals of the Revenue and 9 cross objections of the respondent/assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaco 69/Del/2009, Co 237, 238/Del/2009, (In Ita Nos. 1504, 3519, 3653/Del/2008) Ays: 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 M/S. Sahara India Financial Vs. Dcit, Corporation Ltd, Central Circle-6, Kapoorthala Complex, Ali New Delhi Ganj, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcs8698C

section 127 for the same assessment year(s).” [Emphasized by us] 8. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. MSPL Ltd. (supra) has reiterated the legal position that the seat of Tribunal and/or jurisdiction of concerned Hon‟ble High Court would depend upon where seat of the Assessing Officer who has passed the assessment order