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

9 of 19 pages condone delay has been conferred to do substantial justice and the court should adopt a liberal approach and the delay resulting from official procedures should normally be condoned. This court rejected the argument, placing reliance on the judgment in the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra) and observed that although the provisions under Section 5 Limitation

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

9 of 22 assessee came up with the defence that the responsibility for the alleged forgery of the certificates lay at the doors of A.K. Sikri, which was not an acceptable or reasonable explanation; the assessee was also involved in the forgery and, therefore, its plea for condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions

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

9 of 22 assessee came up with the defence that the responsibility for the alleged forgery of the certificates lay at the doors of A.K. Sikri, which was not an acceptable or reasonable explanation; the assessee was also involved in the forgery and, therefore, its plea for condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

9 of 22 assessee came up with the defence that the responsibility for the alleged forgery of the certificates lay at the doors of A.K. Sikri, which was not an acceptable or reasonable explanation; the assessee was also involved in the forgery and, therefore, its plea for condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

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

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

condone the delay in filing of appeal even when there is complete absence of sufficient cause for the delay. We wish to discourage the tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter. The lackadaisical propensity for delay exhibited in a non- challant way needs to be curbed; as in the facts and circumstances of the present case before

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

section 9(1)\n(vii) (b) of the Act.\n\n8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after\ninordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with endorsement\nat the bottom of appeal that the limitation expires on 21-02-2015\nand the copy of the order was communicated

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

9(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

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement