PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA 2021:DHC:520-DB ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals

M/S. SIR SHADILAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

132(4) - YES: SC There are no grounds to interfere with the order. Pending applications, if any, set aside as well. Assessee's SLP Dismissed JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 19. Heard the arguments of both

M/S. SIR SHADILAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

132(4) - YES: SC There are no grounds to interfere with the order. Pending applications, if any, set aside as well. Assessee's SLP Dismissed JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 19. Heard the arguments of both

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead

PURUSHUTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DCIT

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after allowing an opportunity to the Appellant. Thereafter, the CIT (A) passed an order dated 30th January 2004 sustaining some of the additions made by the AO. 13. The Assessee also filed an application before the CIT (A) under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the order dated 30th

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after allowing an opportunity to the Appellant. Thereafter, the CIT (A) passed an order dated 30th January 2004 sustaining some of the additions made by the AO. 13. The Assessee also filed an application before the CIT (A) under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the order dated 30th

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply