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

133 (Mad) – delay of 20 years condoned e) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Smt Kamalpreet Singh vs ITO in ITA Nos. 1750 & 1751 /Del/2023 dated 15.5.2024 - delay of 1670 days condoned f) Decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of M/s Saravana Stocks Investments (P) Ltd vs DCIT in ITA No. 2803 /Chny/ 2019 dated 12.4.2023 – delay

ELLORA INRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel at the outset pointed that the present appeal is filed belatedly by about 230 days. An application for condonation of delay dated 14/09/2021 was adverted to in this regard to demonstrate existence of mitigating circumstances. It was essentially pointed out that the delay is attributable to lapse on the part

PCIT-07, DELHI vs. M/S WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.

delay is condoned. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 135/2023 4. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short “Tribunal”] concerning Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:15.04.2023 13:55:33 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:2439-DB ITA 135/2023 Pg.2 of 12 Assessment Year

PINGASH HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs.93,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium and share capital despite furnishing

S R FOILS & TISSUE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12

condonation of delay is available on record. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was first fixed for hearing on 27.07.2015. On that date the assessee requested that the appeal be kept in abeyance till the decision on quantum appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that section 275(1A) takes care of any decision in quantum appeal. He fixed

SHARDA RANI GUPTA L/H LATE HEM CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 55(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2055/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2009-10) Mrs Sharda Rani Gupta, L/H Late Hem Chand Gupta C/O Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, C.A, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aakpg-2688-Q बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 55(4), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.04.2023, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 29 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, But Was For The Reasons

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. This is second round of litigation before the Tribunal in assessee’s case for AY 2009-10. Earlier cross appeals were filed by the Revenue and the assessee in ITA No. 2493/Del/2013 and 2303/del/2013. The Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2016 allowed the appeal

NTPC BHEL POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-18(2), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay of 852 days in filing the appeal and admitted for adjudication. 6.The brief facts of the case are that assessee is EPC Contractor engaged to have certain preliminary site enabling assets for 6 facilitating project construction of 500MW unit Power Plant at site. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30-09-2015 declaring loss

J. M. HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee through grounds of appeal no.1 to 6 is regarding invocation of her revisionary authority under section 263 by the ld. PCIT, Central Kanpur, at Meerut through his order dated 27.03.2025. As per brief factual matrix of the case, appellant had filed original Return

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

BHAWNA PAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(7), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

133(6) of the Act as under: Name of Bank & Cash deposit during Total cash deposit Other credit A/c No. demonetization in bank account in FY 2016- period of FY 2016-17 during FY 2016-17 17 Union Bank of 11,98,000/- 18,73,000/- 36,52,315/- India A/c. 685301010050142 Total

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE vs. MAHESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal 19/176 Near Usha Mata Mandir Old Rohtak Road , North West Delhi 110035 Pan No. Adupa7276 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the income assessed by the AO at Rs.4,25,47,065/- on estimation basis at 8% of the turn over

RITS JEWELLERS PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, FARIDABAD

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12/04/2017 at returned income of Rs. 2,07,909/-. The case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ through the CASS to verify large share premium received during the year. Notice

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SINGHANIA ALU FOIL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, return of Income was filed on 30.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.13,65,640/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was issued on 29.07.2016. The assessment

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 6 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia 8. The Ground No. 1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 9. Ground No. 2 is regarding addition made on account of treating Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the treatment of Long Term

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 52(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NOVEL INFRATECH, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarito, Vs. M/S. Novel Infratech, Ward-52(1), Flat No. 915, Indra Prakash New Delhi Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfn0187A

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. M/s. Novel Infratech 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ODIA SAMAJ, NEW DELHI

In the result Cross objections raised by assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 27 days in filing the instant cross objections by assessee is condoned. 3 The Revenue has filed the appeal with the following grounds: “1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) for the AY 2020-21 has erred in allowing and directing the AO to re- compute

DR. PRIYA NARULA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD INT. TAX 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay is condoned. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident citizen of UK and tax resident of the said country as per Laws of United Kingdom of Great Britain. The assessee is practicing Medicine in the field of Gynecology in United Kingdom of Great Britain. During the year under consideration

MAVENIR INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGOAN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrar Assessment Year: 2016-17

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law the assessment order passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre (‘the 3 Ld. AO’) under Section

J S EXIM PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay is thus condoned and the matter is proceeded for hearing on merits. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of letting of commercial property and deriving income under various heads viz; business income, income from house property and income from other sources’. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 in question