BHASIN INFOTECH & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Vs Acit, Pvt.Ltd., 28, Raja Garden Chowk, Central Circle-2, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccb9344D Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Salil Kapoor, Vikas Jain, Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Respondent By Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022

condonation of delay).” FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically, declaring loss of Rs.2,73,530/- on 17.12.2014. The case of the assessee was 3 | P a g e selected for scrutiny under CASS. After issuing statutory notices and considering the material placed on record

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI vs. OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

150(1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019. 4 ITA. Nos. 1557 & 1558/Del/2019 & ITA. No. 2829/Del/2019 M/s. Opal Buildwell, New Delhi. ITA No. 2829/Del/2019 (AY 2009-10) (Revenue) 8. There was of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. In the application for condonation of delay the revenue pleaded the assessment

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

150(1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019. 4 ITA. Nos. 1557 & 1558/Del/2019 & ITA. No. 2829/Del/2019 M/s. Opal Buildwell, New Delhi. ITA No. 2829/Del/2019 (AY 2009-10) (Revenue) 8. There was of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. In the application for condonation of delay the revenue pleaded the assessment

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

150(1) of the Act in ITA No. 1557 and 1558/Del/2019 and 2829/Del/2019. 4 ITA. Nos. 1557 & 1558/Del/2019 & ITA. No. 2829/Del/2019 M/s. Opal Buildwell, New Delhi. ITA No. 2829/Del/2019 (AY 2009-10) (Revenue) 8. There was of delay of 20 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. In the application for condonation of delay the revenue pleaded the assessment

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- "1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 days, whereas the appeals for the A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are time barred by 134 days. 3.1. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for all these years consolidatedly supported by affidavit of the assessee. 3.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that in all these years penalty was levied penalty under section

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 days, whereas the appeals for the A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are time barred by 134 days. 3.1. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for all these years consolidatedly supported by affidavit of the assessee. 3.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that in all these years penalty was levied penalty under section

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 days, whereas the appeals for the A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are time barred by 134 days. 3.1. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for all these years consolidatedly supported by affidavit of the assessee. 3.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that in all these years penalty was levied penalty under section

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 days, whereas the appeals for the A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are time barred by 134 days. 3.1. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for all these years consolidatedly supported by affidavit of the assessee. 3.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that in all these years penalty was levied penalty under section

SANJAY TYAGI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 days, whereas the appeals for the A.Ys. 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are time barred by 134 days. 3.1. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay for all these years consolidatedly supported by affidavit of the assessee. 3.2. Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that in all these years penalty was levied penalty under section

KANWALJEET SINGH TOOR,PUNJAB vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

delay in filing all the appeals are condoned. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at various business and residential premises of the Directors and important employees of the Pearl Group on 22.03.2010. This group, in the recent past, diversified into multifarious activities

KANWALJEET SINGH TOOR,PUNJAB vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

delay in filing all the appeals are condoned. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at various business and residential premises of the Directors and important employees of the Pearl Group on 22.03.2010. This group, in the recent past, diversified into multifarious activities

KANWALJEET SINGH TOOR,PUNJAB vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

delay in filing all the appeals are condoned. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that search and seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at various business and residential premises of the Directors and important employees of the Pearl Group on 22.03.2010. This group, in the recent past, diversified into multifarious activities

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a private limited company who filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 129603/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010 the ld Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are complexity in the accounts of the assessee and in the interest of revenue its books

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7, DELHI vs. XEROX INDIA LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS XEROX MODICORP LTD.)

condone the delay. 5.1 It is ordered accordingly. 6. The applications shall stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 431/2023 7. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 8. Via, this appeal the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal]. 9. The following questions

GORJA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,HISAR vs. ITO WARD-02, HISAR

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

condoning the delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal purely on technical consideration without appreciating that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 2 3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred both

RISHI RAJ JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is taken up for hearing on merits of the case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee's premises at D-70, Defence Colony, Delhi was searched on 26.07.2017 wherein jewellery worth Rs. 2,29,43,309/- was found out of which jewellery worth Rs.59

DAYA SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2008-09

delay stands condoned. 5 3. Coming to merits of case, the Assessee declared her taxable income at Rs. 1,60,150/- by filing its return of income on dated 25.02.2010, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently on dated 13.03.2012 an information was received from ADIT(Inv.), Unit-V, New Delhi to the effect that Assessee