DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

delay was condoned and the trust should be granted registration from inception. 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 11 of 22 14. While narrating the sequence of the events leading to the arrest of A.K. Sikri, the Tribunal took note of the genesis of the entire affair which started from

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(5) of I.T. Act. (B.3) Although the assessee has placed reliance on the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 / (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we have, in addition, also considered numerous other decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in G. Ramegowda

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

RAJESH PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2001-02

section 156 of the Act is required. 3.6 On receipt of Ld. AO’s said letter dated 17.07.2018 the assessee filed From 35 before the Ld. CIT(A) requesting him to accept the appeal condoning the delay

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

156 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That when the appellant was having reasonable cause in not deducting TDS u/s 195 the penalty imposed is bad in law. 5. That the appellant was not in the knowledge that Smt. Nidhi Ram Singh was an NRI and there were no circumstances to suggest to appellant that she was NRI hence there

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

156 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That when the appellant was having reasonable cause in not deducting TDS u/s 195 the penalty imposed is bad in law. 5. That the appellant was not in the knowledge that Smt. Nidhi Ram Singh was an NRI and there were no circumstances to suggest to appellant that she was NRI hence there

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

156 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That when the appellant was having reasonable cause in not deducting TDS u/s 195 the penalty imposed is bad in law. 5. That the appellant was not in the knowledge that Smt. Nidhi Ram Singh was an NRI and there were no circumstances to suggest to appellant that she was NRI hence there

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

156 of the Act, the failure to pay the tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per the provisions of section 220(2) of the Act. However, section 206C (7) of the Act also contains provisions for levy of interest for non-payment of tax specified in the intimation to be issued. To remove the possibility

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

156 of the Act, the failure to pay the tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per the provisions of section 220(2) of the Act. However, section 206C (7) of the Act also contains provisions for levy of interest for non-payment of tax specified in the intimation to be issued. To remove the possibility

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condonation of the delay cantrot be acceptcd IZ In fine, the DIT (Exemptions) concluded that registratiou under section l2A cannot be granted and the delay in filing the applicatron cattnot be ct-ttrcloltccl Consequently the claim for certificate of exenption under sectton BOG rvas alstr reiected. This order was passed on24 9 2008 13. It rvas against the aforesaid order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1 vs. M/S CBS HOLDING PVT. LTD.

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 5. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 156 days in filing the appeal. 6. Issue notice to respondent/assessee via all modes, including email. 7. List the application on 11.01.2024. ITA 689/2023 8. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 9. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail

M/S PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

condoned the alleged delay in filing the appeal, which appeal had been filed on 30.08.2010 against the order of assessment dated 27.09.2006, which order was served, without notice of demand under section 156