DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 12A and 80G of the Act, which were followed up by another set of applications filed directly with the DIT (Exemptions) on 21.12.2005; these applications were obviously delayed and the condonation application was filed on 14.03.2006 narrating the events that led to the delay. 19

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 12A and 80G of the Act, which were followed up by another set of applications filed directly with the DIT (Exemptions) on 21.12.2005; these applications were obviously delayed and the condonation application was filed on 14.03.2006 narrating the events that led to the delay. 19

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condoned in respect of the bank, then the matter even in so far as the appellant is concerned would be over. 19. He further submitted that the order dated 03.03.2011 whereby the respondent No. 3 revoked the passport of the appellant was bad for another reason. The reason being that the said order dated 03.03.2011 refers to diversion of Foreign

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

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal within time prescribed U/s 253(3) of I.T. Act. In view of detailed discussion; and facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in foregoing paragraphs (B), (B.1), (B.2), (B.2.1), (B.3) and (C) of this order we conclude, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that no cause has been shown

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

section 253(3A) of the Act, the\nlimitation for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal expire\non 21.02.2015 and therefore, the present accompanying\nappeal is delayed by 1021 days.\n\n4) The matter regarding filing of appeal in the impugned case\nfor AY 2010-11 got missed due to the reason for this omission\nare as follows:-oversight which

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

section 139 of the Act. 17.1 In this regard the CBDT has issued Circular No. 6/2020 dt. 19/02/2020 which read as under: Circular No. 6/2020 “ F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes ***** New Delhi, the 19 February, 2020 Sub: Condonation of delay

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

section 148 of the Act was not received by the assessee. The Appellant came to know about the impugned order only when Penalty Notice u/s 271AAC (1) was received in last week of August. After that Assessee had filed reply and requested to the AO that Kindly ITA Nos- 3671 & 3670/Del/2025 Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary Kept the Penalty proceeding

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

section 148 of the Act was not received by the assessee. The Appellant came to know about the impugned order only when Penalty Notice u/s 271AAC (1) was received in last week of August. After that Assessee had filed reply and requested to the AO that Kindly ITA Nos- 3671 & 3670/Del/2025 Sh. Raj Kumar Chaudhary Kept the Penalty proceeding

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 119(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) by Circular No.2/2020 (F.No. 197/55/2018-ITA-1] dated 03.01.2020 authorized the Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B for AY 2018- 19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

19(2), Delhi under Section\n143(1) of the Act. Since some common issues are involved for adjudication,\n3\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\nall these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience.\nITA No. 2581/Del/2024 (Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2015-16):\n2\nThe appeal filed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

19(2), Delhi under Section\n143(1) of the Act. Since some common issues are involved for adjudication,\n3\nITA Nos.2581 & 3084/Del/2024\nC.O. Nos.67 & 96/Del/2024\nall these matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this\ncommon order for the sake of convenience.\nITA No. 2581/Del/2024 (Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2015-16):\n2\nThe appeal filed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

19 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. manhandling of the Search Officer, looting of seized material and registration of criminal cases against the protesters of the Group and their Associates due to the criminal action, should not have condoned the delay. The assessee was also non-cooperative at every stage, therefore, the delay should

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

19 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. manhandling of the Search Officer, looting of seized material and registration of criminal cases against the protesters of the Group and their Associates due to the criminal action, should not have condoned the delay. The assessee was also non-cooperative at every stage, therefore, the delay should

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

19 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. manhandling of the Search Officer, looting of seized material and registration of criminal cases against the protesters of the Group and their Associates due to the criminal action, should not have condoned the delay. The assessee was also non-cooperative at every stage, therefore, the delay should

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

19 ITA.No.2277/Del./2016 etc., batch M/s. Alankar Saphire Developers, New Delhi. manhandling of the Search Officer, looting of seized material and registration of criminal cases against the protesters of the Group and their Associates due to the criminal action, should not have condoned the delay. The assessee was also non-cooperative at every stage, therefore, the delay should