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

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section 12A/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse?” 2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income

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

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section 12A/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse?” 2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

12A of the Act by order dated 29.06.1998. In respect of the assessment year 1998-99, it filed a return of income declaring “nil” income on 22.10.1998. The return was first accepted under Section 143(1)(a) on 26.03.1999 but was subsequently selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notices were issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. In the course

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

12A of the Act by order dated 29.06.1998. In respect of the assessment year 1998-99, it filed a return of income declaring “nil” income on 22.10.1998. The return was first accepted under Section 143(1)(a) on 26.03.1999 but was subsequently selected for scrutiny. Accordingly notices were issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. In the course

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. We have passed this order in exercise of our powers under

SHRI BANKE BIHARI GAUSHALA SOCIETY,BALLABGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Sector-17E, Chandigarh PAN: ABATS5761M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM These appeals are inter-connected as these contain common facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

SHRI BANKE BIHARI GAUSHALA SOCIETY,BALLABGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

C. R. Building, Faridabad, Haryana Sector-17E, Chandigarh PAN: ABATS5761M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM These appeals are inter-connected as these contain common facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

SAT SHREE LALJI MISSION CHARITABLE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

C. R. Building, PAN: AATTS9141F Sector-17E, Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM These appeals are inter-connected as these contain common facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this

SAT SHREE LALJI MISSIONJ CHARITABLE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

C. R. Building, PAN: AATTS9141F Sector-17E, Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM These appeals are inter-connected as these contain common facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this

ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI vs. WINDLASS STEEL CRAFTS LLP, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

C. R. Building, PAN: AATTS9141F Sector-17E, Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Jitender Wadhwa, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM These appeals are inter-connected as these contain common facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this

SWAVALAMBAN AVAM SWABHIMAAN FOUNDATION ,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 11 days in filing these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of rejection dated 10.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(E), stated that registration was denied to the assessee u/s.12A on the ground that certain details were not furnished by the assessee

SWAVALAMBAN AVAM SWABHIMAAN FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 11 days in filing these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of rejection dated 10.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(E), stated that registration was denied to the assessee u/s.12A on the ground that certain details were not furnished by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

12A of the Commercial\nCourts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the\nNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which\nprescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings,\nbuter limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone\ndelay) and termination of proceedings.\nThis explanation was given in regard to delay of 238 days

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

1) of the Act.\n2\nDue date for filing of appeal\n23-08-2016\n3\nDate of filing of appeal\n07-11-2020\n4\nTotal Days Delay\n1537\n5\nPeriod of Delay\n24-08-2016\nto 1299\n14.03.2020\n6\nBalance Period due to Covid 15-03-2020 to 238\n19 Pandemic\n07.11.2020\n3.0 In respect of condonation of delay, reliance

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data