B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay by CIT(E) is only an additional remedy. (Pages 1-3 of case law compilation) Filing of Audit Report u/s 10B was directory and not mandatory Submissions and case law regarding these grounds (Pages 66-71 of PB) Audit Report was given in Return Form (Pages 31-33 of PB) Application for additional evidence (Pages

MOHD ABID,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

condoning inordinate delay of 168 days. Therefore, appeal stand dismissed in limine in view of non- compliance of the provision of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. VATIKA LIMITED.

168 days. 2. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 560/2022 4. Mr Shlok Chandra, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, informs us that in the assessee’s appeal, i.e., ITA No.33/2020, the issue which arises for consideration also obtains in the instant appeal. ITA 560/2022 page

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. VEDANTA LIMITED.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

delay is condoned. ITA 1467/2018 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short ‘Act’) in the case of Vedanta Ltd (Formerly known as Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd.) relates to the assessment year 2010-2011 and arises from the order dated 10th April, 2018 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI, JHADEWALAN vs. ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

condone the delay. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a limited company which filed its return of Income for A.Y 2016-17 on 29.09.2016 declaring loss of Rs 32,48,76,393. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and an order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed wherein

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

168, Sector 27-28, Delhi Road, Hisar -125 044. PAN: AAICS9088H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA & Shri Akshay Goyal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2023 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: ITA Nos.5701 to 5704/Del/2016 by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A), Hisar

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

168, Sector 27-28, Delhi Road, Hisar -125 044. PAN: AAICS9088H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA & Shri Akshay Goyal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2023 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: ITA Nos.5701 to 5704/Del/2016 by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A), Hisar

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

168, Sector 27-28, Delhi Road, Hisar -125 044. PAN: AAICS9088H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA & Shri Akshay Goyal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2023 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: ITA Nos.5701 to 5704/Del/2016 by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A), Hisar

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

168, Sector 27-28, Delhi Road, Hisar -125 044. PAN: AAICS9088H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Goyal, CA & Shri Akshay Goyal, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Kajal Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2023 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: ITA Nos.5701 to 5704/Del/2016 by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A), Hisar

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

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

TAHAR SINGH (THROUGH L/H SUNITA KUMARI ),GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 42(3), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh.Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

section 147 to 151 of the Act and assessment framed is contrary to these provisions. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that mere knowledge of sale of property by the deceased father came to the notice of AO during the course of earlier assessment year

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. XIOCOM ( NZ) LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the appellant/the Revenue and in

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay of 1080 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 299/2025 3. The challenge in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) is to an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 17.02.2022, whereby the ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. XIOCOM ( NZ) LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the

delay of 1080 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The same is allowed. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 299/2025 3. The challenge in this appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) is to an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dated 12.02.2022, whereby the ITAT