DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

sections 12A and 80G; however, it was held that the authorities would be free to examine the application of funds in conformity with the objects of the trust in the assessment to be made under the Act. Since there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the applications for registration, it was held that the delay was condoned

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

sections 12A and 80G; however, it was held that the authorities would be free to examine the application of funds in conformity with the objects of the trust in the assessment to be made under the Act. Since there were sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the applications for registration, it was held that the delay was condoned

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

Section 14.\"\n\n7. In view of the judicial pronouncements and the absence of any\njustification or sufficient cause having been shown, we find ourselves\nunable to sustain the prayer for condonation of delay

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of appeal even when there is complete absence of sufficient cause for the delay. We wish to discourage the tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter. The lackadaisical propensity for delay exhibited in a non- challant way needs to be curbed; as in the facts and circumstances of the present case before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

14 days where no sufficient cause were shown the Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay and directed the courts to decide the case on merits. In the light of the above discussion it is noted that revenue has given a detailed date ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year

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

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

M/S DIGITE INC. USA,USA vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC. USA,PUNE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC.,CALIFORINA vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

ZTE CORPORATION,CHINA vs. JCIT (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

14 of the application for condonation of delay wherein reliance has been placed on order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020, whilst acknowledging these unprecedented times in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India, on its own motion

ZTE CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

14 of the application for condonation of delay wherein reliance has been placed on order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020, whilst acknowledging these unprecedented times in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India, on its own motion

DCIT, INT. TAX.,.CIRCLE GURGAON, GURGAON vs. ZTE CORPORATION , CHINA

14 of the application for condonation of delay wherein reliance has been placed on order dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020, whilst acknowledging these unprecedented times in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India, on its own motion

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

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. 13. Briefly the facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file

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

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. 13. Briefly the facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file