PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

13. Section 29A, as explained in recent decisions of this Court in Rohan Builders (supra), Lancor Holdings (Supra) and Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule15 can be formulated as under: (I) Sub-section (1) of Section 29A mandates that the award shall be made within 12 months of the completion of pleadings before the Arbitral Tribunal16. While sub-section (2) incentivises

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section 13

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

condone the delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

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

2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under: “27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

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

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation 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

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

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

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

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income

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

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

delay in issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act would be fatal to the re-assessment proceedings. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that as far as the second ground is concerned, the Petitioner should succeed. In that view of the matter, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the first ground

CHURCH'S AUXILIARY FOR SOCIAL ACTION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

condonation on merit and the SLP filed by the Revenue against the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the society is registered under FCRA and is entitled to receive the foreign contribution for charitable activities and therefore out of the purview of section 2