CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), 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

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), 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

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), 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

CIT vs. AAR BEE INDUSTRIES

condonation of delay applications have been filed. 2013:DHC:3043-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

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

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

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

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(5) of I.T. Act. (B.3) Although the assessee has placed reliance on the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 / (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we have, in addition, also considered numerous other decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in G. Ramegowda

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

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

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

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

JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD UP

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4515/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jcit(Osd), Vs Ace Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, B-47, Surya Nagar, Sahibabad, Noida, U.P.-201301 Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakca8694D

127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in this, was passed by the ld. PCIT, Ghaziabad communicated vide F.No. Pr. CIT- GZB/ITO(T)/Transfer/2015-16/3543 dated 22.02.2016. 5. E-return in this case has been filed by the assessee on 25.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.38,96,010/-. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

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

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer