HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

198) 17itd 1021 (Hon'ble Calcutta ITAT) has passed the order in favor of revenue. 7.9 In view of the above discussions and decisions, the request for condonation of delay is rejected as the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

DEVENDER KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

198-A, New Defence [vs. Ward-(2), Colony, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad – 201 001 U.P. Ghaziabad. PAN DQTPK8854G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Akshit, Goel, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SNG DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

198 ITR 669 (All.) C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law and on facts by not giving any finding on the case laws cited on page 2 of the written submission dated 27.05.2011 on the subject relevant to two notices issued

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee i.e. Shri Chetan Seth, in respective Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 except for the variation in the amounts. The said additions were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) for all the above Assessment Years. The assessee filed appeal

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. AUTO IGNITION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed and matter is

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

condonation of delay of 481 days, qua the assessment year 2008-09 on the grounds inter alia that :- “The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the arbitrary additions made by the Ld. OCIT on the plea that a solo notice dated 09.10.2012 fixing the hearing on 26.10.2012 was returned by postal authorities

INDRAWATI,HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD-2, PANIPAT

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

198 which is clearly illegal and in excess of its jurisdiction and therefore the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC deserves to be quashed/set aside. 7. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that I.T.As No.1425 & 1426/Del/2022 3 no requisite enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer while disallowing

INDRAWATI ,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-2, PANIPAT

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

198 which is clearly illegal and in excess of its jurisdiction and therefore the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act by CPC deserves to be quashed/set aside. 7. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that I.T.As No.1425 & 1426/Del/2022 3 no requisite enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer while disallowing

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that the appeals and the Cross objections in relevant years being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, hover around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated by this common order

DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that the appeals and the Cross objections in relevant years being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, hover around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated by this common order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI, I.P.ESTATE vs. BUREAU VERITAS CONSUMER PRODUCTS SERVICES(INDIA) PVT. LTD., LAJPAT NAGAR

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.63/Chny/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3157/Chny2017) [Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner Of Dalmiapuram, Income Tax, Circle-1, Tamilnadu-621651 Vs Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan- Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Dalmiapuram, Williams Road, Vs Tamilnadu, 621651 Cantonment, Trichy, Tamil Nadu-620001 Pan-Aadca9414C Assessee Revenue

condone the delay in the appeals of the Revenue and proceed to adjudicate the same. 3. Both the contesting parties have informed that the appeals and the Cross objections in relevant years being AY 2013-14 and 2014-15, hover around common issues and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard and are being adjudicated by this common order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VII vs. POLE STAR SECURITIES PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

condone the delay of around 40 months in the Petitioner filing a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act') against orders ofassessment dated passed under Sections 153A/143 (3) ofthe Act for AYs 2005-06to 2008-09. 3. The Petitioner is the Chainnan cum Managing Director ('MD') of M/s Uflex Group of companies, the parent

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-II), vs. M/S IMAGES CREDIT AND PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD.,

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

condone the delay of around 40 months in the Petitioner filing a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ('Act') against orders ofassessment dated passed under Sections 153A/143 (3) ofthe Act for AYs 2005-06to 2008-09. 3. The Petitioner is the Chainnan cum Managing Director ('MD') of M/s Uflex Group of companies, the parent