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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3 vs. SUMITOMO COPORATION

delay is condoned. The application is disposed of in the said terms. ITA 276/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. 6. The appellant/revenue seeks to challenge the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Act”]. 6.1 The only question which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether or not the appellant/revenue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 3 vs. SUMITOMO COPORATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

delay is condoned. The application is disposed of in the said terms. ITA 276/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. 6. The appellant/revenue seeks to challenge the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Act”]. 6.1 The only question which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether or not the appellant/revenue

GAYATRI SEWA SANSTHAN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee will get relief of INR 90 Lakhs of the loan taken from M/s

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Gayatri Sewa Sansthan Vs Dcit 155, G.T.Road, Circle-2(1)(1) Panchwati Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad U.P-201001. Pan-Aaatg1960H Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shivam Gupta, Adv. & Deepashree Rao, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of 19.11.2025 Pronouncement

199 days for which an application for condonation of delay is filed wherein it is stated that the assessee has filed the submission before Ld.CIT(A) through online portal on 10.05.2024 and had not received any further communication. The assessee was under Bonafide belief that the appellate proceedings were continued however, when the assessee had received a penalty notice dated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications moved by the assessee company for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed, and both the appeals are ordered to be taken

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications moved by the assessee company for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed, and both the appeals are ordered to be taken

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications moved by the assessee company for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed, and both the appeals are ordered to be taken

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications moved by the assessee company for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed, and both the appeals are ordered to be taken

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications moved by the assessee company for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed, and both the appeals are ordered to be taken

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications moved by the assessee company for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed, and both the appeals are ordered to be taken

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

199 days and 303 days in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively is required to be condoned, hence condoned which would otherwise not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. So, applications moved by the assessee company for AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively for condonation of delay are allowed, and both the appeals are ordered to be taken

AWP ASSISTANCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay. 4. Submissions of Ld. AR before us are twofold. Firstly, he submitted that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the reasons given by the assessee to file of the appeal with the delay in their proper perspective and it resulted in miscarriage of justice in the form of dismissal of the appeal by the learned

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

199 ITR 129 (All.) and Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 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

KEMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 14(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with direction to the Ld

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Kema India Private Vs. Ito Limited, Ward-14(3), 2Nd Floor, Elegance Tower, New Delhi Jasola District Centre, Old Mathura Road,, New Delhi Pan – Aaeck5438P (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay condonation application of the assessee is allowed. 3. Coming to the merits, the brief facts are that the appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of energy supply, environment and quality assurance wherein it acts as consultants and technical advisors. The return for the assessment year 2015-16 was taken up for scrutiny through CASS

HOMES AT LEISURE LLP,GURGAON vs. DCIT - CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

condonation of delay in fding the appeal, although there was a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. ClT(A)erred in upholding the disallowance of credit of TDS of Rs. 1,44,167/- in the Assessment Year 2016-17, without appreciating

SULTAN KHAN,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(4), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

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

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalshri Sultan Khan Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 199, Sufi Chairman War-5(3) (4) Wali Gali, Nai Abadi Dadri, Income Tax Office, G Block Gautam Budh Nagar-203207, Complex, Sector-20, Uttar Pradesh Gautam Budh Nagar- Pan: Bnspk7225H 201307- Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh.Neeraj Kumar (Virtual) Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

199, Sufi Chairman War-5(3) (4) Wali Gali, Nai Abadi Dadri, Income Tax Office, G Block Gautam Budh Nagar-203207, Complex, Sector-20, Uttar Pradesh Gautam Budh Nagar- PAN: BNSPK7225H 201307- Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh.Neeraj Kumar (Virtual) Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH