ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

condone the delay caused in the filing of the Cross Objections before the Tribunal in case of ACIT CC-3 vs M/s Goldstar Cement Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6177/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09. 4.0 Now we take up the application for the admission of an additional ground which is identical in the cases of ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

condone the delay caused in the filing of the Cross Objections before the Tribunal in case of ACIT CC-3 vs M/s Goldstar Cement Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6177/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09. 4.0 Now we take up the application for the admission of an additional ground which is identical in the cases of ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

JBJ TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

191/- on account of prior period expenses in rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Act. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that there is a delay of 381 days in I.T.A. No.2900/Del/2022 2 filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel adverted to the application filed

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CANTABIL RETAIL INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, C.O. preferred by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the department’s appeal is dismissed as being infructuous

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Catabil Retail India Ltd., Ward 49(3), New Delhi. B-47, Ist Floor, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, New Delhi. Pan: Aaack 3901 B C.O. No. 88/Del/2013 ( In Ita No. 821/Del/2012) Asstt. Yr: 2009-10 Catabil Retail India Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, B-47, Ist Floor, Lawrence Road Ward 49(3), New Delhi. Industrial Area, New Delhi. (Appellant) ( Respondent) Department By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor Adv.

Section 201 (1) r.w.s. 191 of the IT Act as there is no finding by the AO 1 TDS officer as to failure of deductees asessees to pay the tax liability. 2. That without prejudice. the AO has in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee as "Assessee

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. REED HYCALOG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

191 of the Act is not overridden by sections 192,208 and 209(1)(a)( d) of the Act, the scheme of sections 208 and 209 of the Act indicates that in order to compute advance tax the assessee has to, inter alia, estimate his current income and calculate the tax on such income by applying the rates in force

ALLAHABAD BANK,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 6052/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2002-03 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Vasundhra (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F) In Ita No. 6044/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2002-03 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Delhi Gate (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F) In Ita No. 6049/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2002-03 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Ingraham Institute (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F) In Ita No. 6050/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2003-04 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Ingraham Institute (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F)

condoned the delay as he has not only entertained the appeal but also gone ahead to decide the appeal on merits on which the assessee has denied the liability for tax. Thus, we will confine ourselves on the findings of the Learned CIT (Appeals) on the merits. 8. Here in this case, on the perusal of the order

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the assessee case are that, the assessee filed return declared income of RS. 2,74,730/- which has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued. The case

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

delay occurred in filing the present appeal is, therefore, condoned. 3. The brief facts relevant to the issue are that the appellant purchased a property at 1st Floor, E-180, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi from Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi S/o Mr. LY Vahi and Smt Pomila Vahi w/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi, both non-residents

M/S. RANA CASTINGS LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Maharishi Prashantay: 2010-11 M/S Rana Castings Ltd. Vs. Jcit, Range 1 4Th Km Stone, Meerut Road Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar Pan:Aaccm0301K

section 142 (1). In response to the statutory notices, representative of assessee appeared before Ld. AO and attended the proceedings from time to time. 2.1. Ld. AO observed that assessee is a limited company and that during the year under consideration there was no business or manufacturing activity undertaken by assessee. It was submitted before Ld.AO that the only source

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-30, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RADHEY SHYAM BANSAL, NEW DELHI

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condone the delay and admit all the three appeals for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession and is practicing Chartered Accountant, rendering professional services including preparation and filing of income tax returns besides providing services related to accounting, auditing, and other allied matters. A search and seizure action

S.N. ARORA/SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to PB-4 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment. PB-6 is Annexure-C supplied by the Department, which would show that the total deposit in the Bank account of the assessee was Rs.2,05,54,090/- [Whereas the A.O. has wrongly made

S.N. ARORA/SAPRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 23(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for the A

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 7.1. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to PB-4 which is reasons for reopening of the assessment. PB-6 is Annexure-C supplied by the Department, which would show that the total deposit in the Bank account of the assessee was Rs.2,05,54,090/- [Whereas the A.O. has wrongly made

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

191-193 of the paper\nbook, mention land use for agriculture purposes. Further, my ld. Brother also\nnoted that the assessee submitted, tube well plan, sale bills and bills of agriculture\netc. and the Ld. CIT(A) accepted additional evidence at page nos. 281 to 282 of\npaper books and asked the Ld. AO to verify which were not controverted

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

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income