PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

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

Section 138 of the Negotiable 21 2024 SCC OnLine SC 215 Digitally Signed By:NEERU Signing Date:04.04.2026 12:18:42 Signature Not Verified O.M.P. (COMM) 73/2024 Page 31 of 48 Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

NAVEEN CHANDRA BHATT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-71(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. Referring to ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings in as much as the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reasons

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

138 taxmann.com 571 (Madras HC): The Madras High Court held that Section 80AC(ii) clearly bars deduction under Part C of Chapter VIA in case of belated returns. The Court specifically observed that the statutory mandate must be given full effect, and CPC's adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) was justified.  CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala

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

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

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RITA PLASTIC (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Sh. S.K.Yadav & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of this appeal, and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. (C) The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short “Act”) dated 23.09.2008 was issued to the assessee. A notice

SHAMBHU DAYAL MODERN SCHOOL,HARYANA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) ROHTAK, ROHTAK

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1126/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Vs Income Tax Officer(Exemption) Gohana Road, Haryana-131001 Rohtak, Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabts9199M Assessee By : Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.05.2025 Order

delay of 138 days institution of the lower appeal, the same is hereby condoned going by Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 5. This is indeed coupled with the facts that there is also no compliance to section

GEETA BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Geeta Bhasin, Vs Acit, C/O-Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Adv., Circle-28(1), C0763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025. Pan-Acdpb6005D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Shri M.Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

PROPLARITY INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD 5(2)(4), G BUDH NAGAR, G BUDH NAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay against the specific direction 1 Proplarity infratech Pvt. Ltd. of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, whereby reason for delay of 69 days being on account of Writ filed before Hon'ble Allahabad High Court along with court's direction to entertain the appeal on merits without raising any objection with regard to limitation was duly explained

MOVEFAST TOUR & TRAVELS PVT. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2 Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition

ABHI SOAPS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the return for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed by the assessee declaring an income of Rs.1,17,080/-. Later on the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessment

MADHAVA HOME DECOR PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

RAJ KUMAR WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatraj Kumar Wadhwa Vs. Ito H. No.90/38, 2Nd Floor Ward – 61(2) Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-17 New Delhi Pan No. Aabpw 0596 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By -None- Date Of Hearing: 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2023

138 days in filing the appeal. The reasonable cause for delay has been attributed to the misplacement of the file. Upon careful consideration, the delay in this case is condoned. In this case penalty under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

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

delay of 74 days in filing the leave to appeal petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. CRL.L.P. 272/2016 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment 19th December, 2015 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138

MOVEFAST AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 23 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following concise grounds of appeal:- ““1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 85,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium