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

sections": [ "144C(5)", "40(a)(i)", "9(1)(vii)(b)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "144C", "253(2A)", "253(3A)", "253(5)", "14" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue was for a \"sufficient cause\" to warrant condonation

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

section 148 of the Act was not received by the assessee. The Appellant came to know about the impugned order only when Penalty Notice u/s 271AAC(1) was received in last week of August. Thus, this may be treated as sufficient cause for filing the appeal late. This resulted in delay of 177 days in filing the appeal. Affidavit

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

section 148 of the Act was not received by the assessee. The Appellant came to know about the impugned order only when Penalty Notice u/s 271AAC(1) was received in last week of August. Thus, this may be treated as sufficient cause for filing the appeal late. This resulted in delay of 177 days in filing the appeal. Affidavit

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

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

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

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

delay of 159 days in filing the appeal was not condoned. 2. The facts in brief as culled out from the proceedings of the authorities below are that the appellant is a Co-operative Group Housing Society, having almost 1300 members and has inexistence since 18.01.1994. For the concerned assessment year due to negligence of CA of the society

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

condone the delay caused in the filing of the Cross Objections before the Tribunal in case of ACIT CC-3 vs M/s Goldstar Cement Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6177/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09. 4.0 Now we take up the application for the admission of an additional ground which is identical in the cases of ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

condone the delay caused in the filing of the Cross Objections before the Tribunal in case of ACIT CC-3 vs M/s Goldstar Cement Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6177/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09. 4.0 Now we take up the application for the admission of an additional ground which is identical in the cases of ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

RIZWAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but, none attended to by the assessee and the notices came back with the remarks “Refused to take”. The A.O. thereafter issued letter to the assessee as to why income should not be estimated because of the non- cooperation from the side of the assessee. The assessee attended the proceedings with

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STELLAR CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Vs. M/S. Stellar Capital Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd., 325, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacs3356A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessment was finally completed at an assessed income of Rs. 90,93,313/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with the request for condonation of delay

HAR PRASHAD BHUTANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

142(1) of the Act dated 20.04.2017 along with specific questionnaire fixing the case for hearing on 02.05.2017. Since, there was no response from the side of the assessee, the A.O. proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of 3 ITA.No.1522/Del./2020 Shri Harparshad Bhutani, Ghaziabad. the I.T. Act, 1961. He observed that the assessee filed return

CIT vs. ARVINDER SINGH

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

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

142(1) of the Act. After the Assessees filed ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 3 of 12 their written submissions, fresh notices were issued to them under Section 143(2) of the Act. 4. As far as Mr. Arvinder Singh was concerned, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) completed the assessment under Section 158BC read with Section

CIT vs. ELEGANT TRAVELS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

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

142(1) of the Act. After the Assessees filed ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 3 of 12 their written submissions, fresh notices were issued to them under Section 143(2) of the Act. 4. As far as Mr. Arvinder Singh was concerned, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) completed the assessment under Section 158BC read with Section

TRIDENT SALES CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 3(4), GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 8. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) on jurisdictional issue as well as on merits. The concise grounds raised by the assessee in appeal (including additional grounds raising legal issues) are as under:- “1. That in absence of any valid

RAMESH GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and are deciding the case on merit. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative (hereinafter, the ‘AR’), placing emphasis on the fact that the AO has not have valid jurisdiction over the appellant/assessee as the appellant/assessee had never filed any ITR with Delhi address. Even the PAN was not allotted with Delhi address. Hence

BHAWNA PAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(7), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

142(1) of the Act was got served to the assessee through the e-mail. But the same was not complied with. The assessee did not file any ITR. During the course of assessment proceedings, statement of bank account of the assessee was obtained under section 133(6) of the Act as under: Name of Bank & Cash deposit during Total