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

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal deserve to be condoned. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Krishna Kumar Makrania 4. The assessee before us, mainly challenged the assessment proceedings on this particular count that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act have not been issued and served upon the assessee and the reassessment proceedings finalized

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURYA BUILDWELL (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SURYA BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay as sufficient cause is shown. 8. The Ld. authorized representative submitted that impugned assessment year involved in assessment year 2002-03 for which the return of income was filed by the assessee on 28/10/2002 and such return was processed and assessed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that search took place

JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PVT. LTD., GHAZIABAD UP

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4515/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Jcit(Osd), Vs Ace Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1, B-47, Surya Nagar, Sahibabad, Noida, U.P.-201301 Ghaziabad, U.P.-201005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakca8694D

Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and final order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.97 of 2018 and against the order dated 14.09.2018 in Review Petition No.1289 of 2018 arising from said Income Tax Appeal No.97 of 2018. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

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

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

2. The assessee has also filed cross objections challenging the validity of penalty orders alleging that the same are barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the cross objections of the assessee being on legal grounds, may kindly be taken up first and the application for condonation of delay

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

2. The assessee has also filed cross objections challenging the validity of penalty orders alleging that the same are barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the cross objections of the assessee being on legal grounds, may kindly be taken up first and the application for condonation of delay

M/S. HALCROW GROUP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

delay in filling of return and there is no default of payment of Advance tax as the receipt / income is liable to TDS. 8. That the explanations given, evidence produced and material placed and made available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the addition made. 9. That the addition / disallowance

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)

2) issued on 29.06.2021. The order of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was ultimately issued to the appellant on 23.12.2021 inter alia making adjustment of an aggregate amount of Rs.23,23,80,888/-. The assessment was finalized on 21.09.2022 under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act; upon assessment of income at Rs.152

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the ITAT are also set-aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/Revenue

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the ITAT are also set-aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/Revenue

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

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2019. Thereby the AO did not accept the explanation given by the assessee on the basis that the claim of accumulation u/s 11(2) of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,56,576/- under clause (2) of the explanation to sub section (1) of section 11 of the Act was disallowed