COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-2 vs. CAIRNHILL CIPEF LTD.

The appeal is dismissed as according to us, no substantial

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

delay is condoned. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms ITA 610/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 6. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 7. In order to adjudicate the appeal

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SNG DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

163, C.R. Building, New Developers) 112, Indra Delhi Prakash Building, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi GIR/PAN :AAFCS8465B (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr.DR Assessee by Sh. Ram Samujh, Adv. Date of hearing 13.06.2016 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2016 C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue and cross objections

THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

M/S. KUBER MUTUAL BENEFIT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as indicated

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay stating that the delay has wrongly been worked out by the Registry, inasmuch as the limitation in the present appeals has been reckoned from the date of service of first appellate order, i.e., 08.01.2011 till the date of filing the appeals, i.e., 23.05.2014. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that at earlier occasion

RS INDIA INFRAPOWER PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishirs India Infrapower Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, Gl Business Centre, Dundahera, Ward-3(4), Old Delhi, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aaecp9526H (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in the filing of the subject appeal as per the period of limitation provided under the Act for filing an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) passed under section 250. 1.2 That there was a delay in filing of the appeal before your goodself due to the ill health of the Managing Director

M/S. THE COOPERATIVE COMPANY LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

163 ITD 440 (Mumbai-Trib.); Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel v. ITO [Tax appeal Nos. 372-374 of 2011; Gujarat High Court]; and R. Vishwanath v. ITO [2013] 59 SOT 22 (Hyderabad-Trib). He, further & ITA No. 1713/Del/ 2012 The Cooperative Company Ltd. & DCIT submitted that the said delay in filing the appeal was not due to any deliberate lapse or negligence

THE CO-OPERATIVE COMPANY LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

163 ITD 440 (Mumbai-Trib.); Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel v. ITO [Tax appeal Nos. 372-374 of 2011; Gujarat High Court]; and R. Vishwanath v. ITO [2013] 59 SOT 22 (Hyderabad-Trib). He, further & ITA No. 1713/Del/ 2012 The Cooperative Company Ltd. & DCIT submitted that the said delay in filing the appeal was not due to any deliberate lapse or negligence

M/S. THE COOPERATIVE COMPANY LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

163 ITD 440 (Mumbai-Trib.); Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel v. ITO [Tax appeal Nos. 372-374 of 2011; Gujarat High Court]; and R. Vishwanath v. ITO [2013] 59 SOT 22 (Hyderabad-Trib). He, further & ITA No. 1713/Del/ 2012 The Cooperative Company Ltd. & DCIT submitted that the said delay in filing the appeal was not due to any deliberate lapse or negligence

M/S. THE COOPERATIVE COMPANY LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

163 ITD 440 (Mumbai-Trib.); Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel v. ITO [Tax appeal Nos. 372-374 of 2011; Gujarat High Court]; and R. Vishwanath v. ITO [2013] 59 SOT 22 (Hyderabad-Trib). He, further & ITA No. 1713/Del/ 2012 The Cooperative Company Ltd. & DCIT submitted that the said delay in filing the appeal was not due to any deliberate lapse or negligence

ACCORDIS HEALTH CARE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Accordis Health Care Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Central Circle-16, Ca, L-7A, (Lgf), South Extension New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach7405D

delay of 163 days in filing of the appeal is condoned in view of the Covid-19 situation prevailing during the period in which the appeal got barred. 5. The ld DR could not as such dispute certain facts with regard to sequence of events as under:- Date Event Pg. No. 15.07.16 Initiation of regular asstt. proceedings, P-l/asstt

SWATY MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

SONIA MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

ZETA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 on 08.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 98,48,230/- and claimed Refund of Rs. 80,80,460/-. Subsequently, the Return of Income was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income

DCIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TRUSTLINE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2014-15

delay in filing appeal was condoned. The Ld. AR had no objection. 3. The Revenue has taken the following grounds :- “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 vs. VINOD GUGNANI

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 36 days 2. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including e- mail. 3. List the application on 20.11.2023. ITA 297/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 5. The appellant/revenue has laid a challenge to the order dated

PINGASH HOME APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs.93,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium and share capital despite furnishing

M/S DIGITAL RADIO (DELHI) BROADCASTING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1316 &1317/Del/2011 and ITA

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm Andsh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. V Acit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates, S Circle-10(1) C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Acit V Digital Radio (Delhi) Circle-10(1) S Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Kolkata) V Acit Broadcasting Ltd. S Circle-10(1) C/O. O.P. Sapra & New Delhi Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7863G

condonation of delay in the case of Delhi, Kolkata and Chennai due to problems of co-location) up to the cut-off date, and are not in default of any other license conditions till the date of migration to Phase 2. 4. The cut-off date for automatic migration to Phase 2 shall be taken as April

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARISH J.PUNJABI

delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of. ΓΓΑ No. 942/2007 In this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'), ITA 942/2007 % page 1/3 the Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 20th October, 2006 passed by uncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, ('Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'D' in ITA No 4923/Del/2003 relevant for the Assessment Year