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

section 139(9) of the Act is condoned by the AD. Therefore, to regularize proceedings in scrutiny cases where assessee has already removed the defects as specified u/s 139(9), in such cases under scrutiny, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), AD shall condone the delay

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

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

3: 1. Plain Language of the Statute  Section 80AC(ii), as substituted by the Finance Act, 2018, provides that "no deduction under any provision of this Chapter shall be allowed unless the return of income is furnished by the assessee on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139."  The use of the word "shall

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA ,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

delay is condoned in both the\nappeals and the same are admitted for hearing.\n3.\nFurther, it comes up that in AY: 2019-20 the assessment was completed\nu/s 153C of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.1,04,65,425/- as against\nincome returned u/s 139(1) of the Act at Rs.89,25,914/-. The assessee had\nPage

UTTARANCHAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshuttaranchal Rural Development Vs. Ito, Agency, Exemption Circle, Panchayati Raj Bhawan, Ghaziabad Sahastrradhara Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaju0214A Assessee By : Shri S. B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

139(4) of the Act. This is evident from Page 120 of the Paper Book. Hence Assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the co-ordinate bench decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Conference of Religious India vs ITO in ITA No. 2161/Del/2022 for Assessment

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

139 --------- 19. This clearly gives a meaning that self-assessment tax which is payable on the basis of return do not constitute part of prepaid taxes. ITA Nos. 2553 & 2641/Del/2013 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 20. For the purpose of embargo of 10% of the tax determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 244A(1)(a), it is clear from

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

139 --------- 19. This clearly gives a meaning that self-assessment tax which is payable on the basis of return do not constitute part of prepaid taxes. ITA Nos. 2553 & 2641/Del/2013 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 20. For the purpose of embargo of 10% of the tax determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 244A(1)(a), it is clear from

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

139 --------- 19. This clearly gives a meaning that self-assessment tax which is payable on the basis of return do not constitute part of prepaid taxes. ITA Nos. 2553 & 2641/Del/2013 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 20. For the purpose of embargo of 10% of the tax determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 244A(1)(a), it is clear from

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

139 --------- 19. This clearly gives a meaning that self-assessment tax which is payable on the basis of return do not constitute part of prepaid taxes. ITA Nos. 2553 & 2641/Del/2013 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 20. For the purpose of embargo of 10% of the tax determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 244A(1)(a), it is clear from

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

3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, sub-section (5) to section 253 empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Therefore

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

3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, sub-section (5) to section 253 empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Therefore

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

3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, sub-section (5) to section 253 empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Therefore

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

3) to section 253 ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, sub-section (5) to section 253 empowers the Tribunal to admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Therefore

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

delay is condoned in both the\nappeals and the same are admitted for hearing.\n3.\nFurther, it comes up that in AY: 2019-20 the assessment was completed\nu/s 153C of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.1,04,65,425/- as against\nincome returned u/s 139(1) of the Act at Rs.89,25,914/-. The assessee had\nPage

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

139] , A-One Granites v. State of U.P. [(2001) 3 SCC 537 : 2001 AIR SCW 848] and Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111] ] 146. Although decisions are galore on this point, we may refer to a recent one in State of Gujarat v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

3. For all other application for condonation of delay not mentioned above, the power of condonation of delay u/s I 19(2)(b) of the Act will continue with the respective authorities as per the extant Rules and Practice.” 17.2 Earlier also a Circular No. 7/2018 dt. 20/12/2018 was issued by the CBDT which read as under: “SECTION

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

139 or along with the return of income furnished in response to a notice under clause (i ) of sub-section (1) of section 142. (5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee, being a company, mentioned in this section.] (6) The provisions of this section shall not apply