TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 143(1) processing as per law and delay caused involving the entire intervening period as on date shall be deemed to have been condoned

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 143(1) processing as per law and delay caused involving the entire intervening period as on date shall be deemed to have been condoned

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

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

section 143(1) of the Act, a liberal approach may be\ntaken for condonation of delay since assessee's application

THE SOUTH INDIA CLUB,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION 2(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 143(1) and the appeal on this has become infructuous. But still the issue of filing the return within time u/s 139(4) and filing of form 10B before the filing of return is compulsory to grant exemption u/s 11 in a 143(3) order also. Hence the appellant has to get the delay condoned

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay in filing the appeal may be condoned beyond the control of the Appellant.” …………… For A.Y. 2023-24 “That the appellant aggrieved by the Intimation order u/s 143(1) read with section

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay in filing the appeal may be condoned beyond the control of the Appellant.” …………… For A.Y. 2023-24 “That the appellant aggrieved by the Intimation order u/s 143(1) read with section

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

143(1) of the Act, is only an afterthought. Thus, there is no merit in the reasons given by ) the appellant in the petition for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Be that as it may, coming back to the legal position evolved by the decision of various High Courts, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act from the department regarding incorrect claim under section 80IC for carrying out adjustment. The assessee submitted the reply and uploaded the Form 10CCB on 12-10-2022 with request to condone the delay in filing in Form No.10CCB. The Assessing Officer sent the intimation under section 143

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in both the cases is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication through a single order. 2. The appeal for AY 2018-19 (ITA No.4402) arises from order dated 16.07.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-1, Mumbai. The appeal for AY 2019-20 arises from

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in both the cases is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication through a single order. 2. The appeal for AY 2018-19 (ITA No.4402) arises from order dated 16.07.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-1, Mumbai. The appeal for AY 2019-20 arises from

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 143(1) the Act was received with demand payable of Rs. 42,47,54,300/-. 30.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company. 29.10.2015 The AO vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2015 asked the assessee to remove the defect in the return of income and pay taxes u/s 140A of the Act. However

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 143(1) the Act was received with demand payable of Rs. 42,47,54,300/-. 30.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company. 29.10.2015 The AO vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2015 asked the assessee to remove the defect in the return of income and pay taxes u/s 140A of the Act. However

PAWAN HANS LIMITED,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1799/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम Pawan Hans Limited Dcit, Corporate Office, C-14, Vs. Circle 19(2), Sector-1, Noida Raghunathpur, New Delhi. Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaacp1561A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condonation of delay, against the intimation u/s 143(1). 5. Ld. Counsel submitted that the facts of the present case are identical. From a perusal of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3), it is evident that the Assessing Officer has not discussed, analyzed, or adjudicated upon the adjustments made by CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1). Instead

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

delay of 38 days in filing of appeal is condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in business of providing security services, facility management services, HR outsourcing etc. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.12.2022 declaring income of Rs. 1,06,68,311/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1

TANSA TRUST,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Tansa Trust, Vs Acit (Cpc), C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Post Bag No.2, Electronic City B-60/61, Naraina Industrial Area, Post Office, Phase Ii, Bangalore. New Delhi – 110 028. Pragun Finance Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aaatt0504A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vasanti Patel, Ca & Shri M.A. Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

143(1) of the Act before the CIT(Appeals) with a prayer for condonation of delay. 5. The learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation under Section

DIVESH VERMA,BENGALURU vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Divesh Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-804, Veracious Vani Vilas Ward-1(1), Apartments, Doddaballapur Faridabad Main Road, Yelahanka, (Haryana) Bengalure-560064, Karnataka Pan: Aehpv6594H (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing of the Appeal against Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, even when the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , DELHI vs. LOGIC CONTROL PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

delayed return in response to the same. The return was filed beyond the stipulated time and hence the issue/service of notice u/s 143(2) is not applicable in such a case. 6. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee forcefully argued that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is a must while framing order

PRAMOD KUMAR TAYAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) MEERUT, MEERUT

Appeal is allowed

sections": ["10(10AA)", "143(1)", "143(1)(a)(i)", "143(1)(a)(ii)"], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned