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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

ii) loss carried forward, deduction allowance or relief, which was prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return and similarly (iii) those claims which were on the basis of the information available in the return, prima facie inadmissible, were to be rectified/ allowed/disallowed. What was permissible was correction of errors

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

ii) loss carried forward, deduction allowance or relief, which was prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return and similarly (iii) those claims which were on the basis of the information available in the return, prima facie inadmissible, were to be rectified/ allowed/disallowed. What was permissible was correction of errors

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

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the\nintimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is\npending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are\nrejected.\"\nPage | 12\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\n9. However, what is material is that

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)

delay condoned first and can raise the ground Sec. 12A(2) of Income Tax Act is squarely applicable before the appellate authority in the appeal The South India Club vs. ITO against the 143(3) order. The order u/s 143(1) is correct and the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.” 8. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee

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

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

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

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

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

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

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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

143(2) of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer examined the financial statements such as income and expenditure accounts, balance sheet, etc. On a perusal thereof he noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (VDIS) and had paid taxes of `43,76,812/- in respect

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

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 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23.09.2021 of the Commissioner

LAL BABU PANDEY,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(4), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

ii) As business expenditure incurred on account of Business and Commercial Expediency' eligible for deduction under section 37 of the I.T Act 1961. Assessee-Appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to held the expenditure incurred by the Assessee-Employer on depositing the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 275 & 1232/Del/2023 employees contribution to the revenant Acts due to 'business and commercial expediency

LAL BABU PANDEY,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

ii) As business expenditure incurred on account of Business and Commercial Expediency' eligible for deduction under section 37 of the I.T Act 1961. Assessee-Appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to held the expenditure incurred by the Assessee-Employer on depositing the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 275 & 1232/Del/2023 employees contribution to the revenant Acts due to 'business and commercial expediency

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)

Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) while the delay was only of 40 days (from 04 February 2020 to 14 March 2020) as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 10 January 2022. It is prayed that the delay for the period from 15 March 2020 does not merit

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

143(3) of the Act\n26.12.2018\n2\nDue date for filing of appeal\n25.01.2019\n3\nDate of filing of appeal\n06.10.2020\n4\nTotal Days Delay\n635\n5\nPeriod of Delay\n26.10.2019\nto 414\n14.03.2020\n6\nBalance Period due to Covid-\n19 Pandemic\n15.03.2020\nto 221\n06.10.2020\n12\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\n13. The ld. CIT(A) considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

143(3) of the Act\n2\nDue date for filing of appeal\n25.01.2019\n3\nDate of filing of appeal\n06.10.2020\n4\nTotal Days Delay\n635\n5\nPeriod of Delay\n26.10.2019\nto 414\n14.03.2020\n6\nBalance Period due to Covid- 15.03.2020\nto 221\n19 Pandemic\n06.10.2020\n12\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\n13. The ld. CIT(A) considered the explanation