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

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. Mr. Nikhil Sawhney 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assessee would be entitled to claim the long term capital loss on sale of shares through recognized stock exchange, where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) has been suffered and consequentially

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

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

Section 260A of the Act has already granted comparatively much longer period of 120 days to the aggrieved Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:12.12.2023 18:37:57 Signature Not Verified ITA 371/2022 & 526/2022 Page 13 of 19 pages party to file an appeal, which in itself is a factor calling for a rather stricter scrutiny of the factual

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

delay in filing the application cannot be condoned. Consequently the claim for certificate of exemption under section 80G was also rejected. This order was passed on 24.9.2008. 13. It was against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions) that the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No.3054/Del/2008. The Tribunal examined the facts and the submissions in great

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

delay in filing the application cannot be condoned. Consequently the claim for certificate of exemption under section 80G was also rejected. This order was passed on 24.9.2008. 13. It was against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions) that the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No.3054/Del/2008. The Tribunal examined the facts and the submissions in great

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

delay in filing the application cannot be condoned. Consequently the claim for certificate of exemption under section 80G was also rejected. This order was passed on 24.9.2008. 13. It was against the aforesaid order of the DIT (Exemptions) that the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal in ITA No.3054/Del/2008. The Tribunal examined the facts and the submissions in great

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section 13

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

10 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. lawyer well-versed and experienced in law. If an assessee is genuinely aggrieved by an order referred to in Section 253(1) of I.T. Act, and wishes to appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; the only plausible advice by a professional lawyer, well-versed and experienced

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

10 years. Since, in my considered opinion, the assessee has miserably failed to explain cause of delay satisfactorily, the delay cannot be condoned. Accordingly, declining to condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

13 SCC 622 in these words:- 8. The decision in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470 did not deal with specific issues in this case. In that decision it was held that in respect of “sufficient cause cases” the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act which are special provisions relating to condonation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and ant other laws. Copy of the order is attached as Annexure-4." 2.2 In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court order from 15-03-2020 to06- 10-2020) as prayed by the appellant is to be excluded from der above, the delay of 221 days (i.e. counting of delay. 13