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

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

5. The Learned AO, however, did not heed to the aforesaid explanation of the Assessee and proceeded to determine the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 217,81,66,220/- vide his assessment order dated 21-04- 2021 on the ground that the income tax return was not filed before the due date prescribed under Section 139

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

5) of the Act. As already noted the return originally filed was found to be defective. A notice was issued under Section 139 (9) of the Act asking the Assessee to rectify the defects. Section 139 (9) itself states that if the defects are not rectified within the time allowed, then notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this

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

condoned. These decisions are distinguishable as they relate to procedural lapses (timing of furnishing forms).  In contrast, Section 80AC(ii) imposes a substantive condition precedent for eligibility. Failure to comply with such condition results in total disentitlement. 5. Legislative Intent Behind Finance Act, 2018 Amendment  Prior to Finance Act, 2018, Section 80AC applied only to a limited set of deductions

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

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

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

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

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

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

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

5) of section 253 of the Act. 9. As regards assessee’s contention that due to collateral proceedings before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, there was delay in filing the appeals, in my view, this reason also does not hold good. As per assessee’s own admission, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condonation of delay had been obtained in accordance with section 119(2)(b) - However, it was found that provisions of section 119(2)(b) would not be applicable where an assessee had restructured his business, and filed a revised return of income with prior approval and sanction of NCLT, without any objection from department - Further, NCLT had passed last orders

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

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(9) of the Act, inserted w.e.f. 01.04.20 16, stipulates twin conditions of filing of Form 9A/Form 10 and also of filing Return of Income before the due date. 2. Accordingly

NIRANJAN LAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

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 AO would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

KAVITA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

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 AO would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion. 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented by sufficient

FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF MICRO ENTERPRISES,GURUGRAM vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhvs. Cit(Exemptions), Foundation For Advancement Of Micro Chandigarh Enterprises, Unit No. 701 To 711, 7Th Floor, Unitech Commercial, Tower 2, Sector-45, Gurugram, Haryana- 122003 Pan :Aadcf6999F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh Wadhwa, Fca Department By Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr

139 taxmann.com 121, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal while adjudicating the issue of similar provisions of due date under section 10(23C) of the Act, after placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "5. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case

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

NOIDA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

delay in audit and the assessee has reasonable and bona fide cause for not filing return in time, and tribunal concurrently held that assessee was entitle to claim specifically computed deduction, assessee was not to be burdened with taxes, which it was not otherwise not liable to page and the law. We also find that Delhi Tribunal in Fibrefill Engineers