A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

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

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

164, 165 & 166/Del/2021 “1. That the penalty imposed is bad in facts and legal aspects of the case. 2. That penalty imposed is barred by time in terms of provisions of Section 275(1)(C). 3. That the penalty order is bad in law because penalty order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Noida is said

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

164, 165 & 166/Del/2021 “1. That the penalty imposed is bad in facts and legal aspects of the case. 2. That penalty imposed is barred by time in terms of provisions of Section 275(1)(C). 3. That the penalty order is bad in law because penalty order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Noida is said

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

164, 165 & 166/Del/2021 “1. That the penalty imposed is bad in facts and legal aspects of the case. 2. That penalty imposed is barred by time in terms of provisions of Section 275(1)(C). 3. That the penalty order is bad in law because penalty order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Noida is said

RITU MISHRA,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 221(1) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with the assessee’s plea and confirmed the order of the AO. The appeal thus came to be dismissed on 27.06.2012. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

AKANSH AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-59(1), DELHI

delay of 164 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, both appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee due opportunity.", "result": "Allowed", "sections

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. TROJAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

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

164 days, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel says that, as a matter of fact, there is no delay. 2.1. In this behalf, he has drawn our attention to the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by this Court in ITA 278/2023. This order discloses that on 16.05.2023, Mr. Rai had sought leave to withdraw the appeal and the accompanying applications

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. TROJAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

164 days, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel says that, as a matter of fact, there is no delay. 2.1. In this behalf, he has drawn our attention to the order dated 16.05.2023 passed by this Court in ITA 278/2023. This order discloses that on 16.05.2023, Mr. Rai had sought leave to withdraw the appeal and the accompanying applications

WHEELS POLYMERS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. TDS WARD 78(4), DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2024-25 Wheels Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ao, Dsm 212, Dlf Towers 15, Tds Ward 78(4), Najafgarh Road, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi – 110 015. Delhi. Pan : Aaacw0583H

section 194Q of the Act. However, it was alleged that amount of TDS should be deducted at the rate of 5 percent instead of 0.1 percent as the PAN of the seller was inoperative. Consequently, the same resulted in short deduction. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the Appellant preferred an appeal before CIT(A) in search

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. Referring to ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings in as much as the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reasons

KULDEEP GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-69(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2018-19

Section 142(1) was issued on 18.01.2023 and thereafter on 27.02.2023. The assessee could not comply as he was diagnosed with Tuberculosis and was undergoing treatment for the same. The assessment was thus framed ex-parte on 13.03.2023 without any further opportunity. The ld. counsel thereafter submitted that the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority albeit with

DHARAM PAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -42(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 164 days in filing the present appeal. 4 Shri Dharampal, New Delhi 7. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the order of penalty has been issued based on the defective notice issued u/s 274 read with Section

KN SUPPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalkn Support Services Pvt.Ltd., Dcit, 30Th Floor, M3M International Circle 1(1), Financial Centre, Tower-1, Vs. Gurgaon, Golf Course Extensions Road, Haryana Sector 66, Badshapur, Haryana -122101. Pan-Aajck0720B (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC and accept the said Form 10-IC. The respondent concerned is further directed to provide consequential relief to the petitioner by recomputing its tax liability on the submission of its ITR by taking into account Form 10-IC. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.” 11. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi