WELGROW HOTELS CONCEPTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-78(4), DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI G.S.PANNU (President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 194-1 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the first appellate authority erred in confirming order u/s.201(1A), when it was admitted position that the receiver of CAM charges had duly offered the said amount as income and paid taxes there-upon. 3. On the facts

WELGROW HOTELS CONCEPTS (P) LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-78(4), DELHI

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI G.S.PANNU (President), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 194-1 of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the first appellate authority erred in confirming order u/s.201(1A), when it was admitted position that the receiver of CAM charges had duly offered the said amount as income and paid taxes there-upon. 3. On the facts

SH. JAGDEEP SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

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

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay of 275 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing. 6. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.18,00,100/-for non deduction of TDS u/s 194 C of the Act by invoking the provisions of section

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

194 of the Act. Further, the AO noticed that there were cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, he invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) made addition of Rs. 4,46,800/- and assessed income at Rs. 12,21,744/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee carried the matter before learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal in limine

M/S. SJP INFRACON LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3102/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sjp Infracon Ltd., Vs Dcit, A-133, Sector-63, Tds, Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaocs6480K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022

Section 194‐ I, which is clearly the statutory liability”. For the sake of ready reference, the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as under: “Delay condoned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2 vs. M/S SS GROUP

The appeal is dismissed in favour of the respondent and against the

delay of 400 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. The same is allowed. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 308/2025 3. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’, hereinafter) dated 14.02.2024. 4. The assessee who is the respondent herein is engaged in the business of real

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

SEEMA,DELHI vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING UNIT, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

condone the delay of 127 days in filing the appeal without giving and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in any case not appreciating sufficient cause on part of the assessee for such delay, being for reasons and circumstances beyond it's control. 3. That the assessee preferred the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC aggrieved

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, DELHI vs. SMT. SALONI NARANG

194 in filing and the delay of 15 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 437/2024 3. Notice. Although the respondents are stated to have been placed on advance notice, none have appeared on their behalf when the matter was called. 4. We consequently request Mr. Kumar, learned counsel

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)

condonation of delay and consequently the dismissal of appeal on technical ground without considering sufficient cause is bad in law. 3) That in the absence of a show cause notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the assumption of jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 201(1)/201

ABHI SOAPS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the return for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed by the assessee declaring an income of Rs.1,17,080/-. Later on the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessment

MOVEFAST TOUR & TRAVELS PVT. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2 Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition

MADHAVA HOME DECOR PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -TDS-01 vs. BOSE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay of 35 days in filing captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 261/2025 and ITA 263/2025 3. The challenge in this appeal under 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to an order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench, New Delhi in two appeals being ITA No. 2003/De1/2024

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -TDS-01 vs. BOSE CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 35 days in filing captioned appeal is condoned. 2. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 261/2025 and ITA 263/2025 3. The challenge in this appeal under 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to an order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench, New Delhi in two appeals being ITA No. 2003/De1/2024

MAWASI,HARYANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

194), Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BBOPM5239H Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073548007(1) dated

DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. EAGLE HUNTER SOLUTIONS LTD, NEE DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee contributions towards PF/ESI.” 3. Perused the material before us and heard the arguments of ld. DR. Delay condoned. TDS u/s 194

RAHUL RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, GHAZIABAD

condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for hearing.\n\n3. The assessee in the appeal in his hand has not only challenged the\nimpugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 17.03.2022 but has also challenged the\nreopening proceedings itself on the assertion that there was no valid reason to\nbelieve and there was invalid sanction