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

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

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)

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

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

section 139(9) of the Act is condoned by 7 the AO. Therefore, to regularize proceedings in scrutiny cases where assessee has already removed the defects as specified u/s 139(9L in such cases under scrutiny, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) AO shall condone the delay

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 139 (9) of the Act permits the AO to condone the delay where the Assessee rectifies the defect even

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DCIT

Section 139 (9) of the Act permits the AO to condone the delay where the Assessee rectifies the defect even

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. In the instant case, as ascertained from the facts, the delay of 52 days from the prescribed due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) was attributable to genuine hardship and accordingly, such delay is liable to be ignored. 8.1 In view of the aforesaid discussions and by following the binding legal precedents, the addition made

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

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

9 years. Therefore, the huge gap between the date on which the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, passed the order quashing the complaint and the actual date of filing the appeals remains unexplained. As could be seen from record, against the orders passed by the first appellate authority in ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 quantum proceeding the assessee, originally

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

condonation of delay U/S 11 9(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139

GOSWAMI BHAGWAN LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 139(9) of the Act and decide the fate of the ITR. The appellant assessee, in view of the above observations that the delay in filing Form No. 10B is a curable defect, may consider filing Form No. 10B and gets the condonation

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

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as return filed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, no details were furnished. Accordingly, proceedings were culminated by passing an order under section 153A/144 of the Income Tax Act on 24th December 2009 at Rs.2,14,55,132/-. Thereafter the assessee moved an application before Commissioner

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as return filed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, no details were furnished. Accordingly, proceedings were culminated by passing an order under section 153A/144 of the Income Tax Act on 24th December 2009 at Rs.2,14,55,132/-. Thereafter the assessee moved an application before Commissioner

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PEGASUS SOFTECH PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be treated as return filed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, no details were furnished. Accordingly, proceedings were culminated by passing an order under section 153A/144 of the Income Tax Act on 24th December 2009 at Rs.2,14,55,132/-. Thereafter the assessee moved an application before Commissioner