INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Krishna Kumar Makrania 4. The assessee before us, mainly challenged the assessment proceedings on this particular count that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act have not been issued and served upon the assessee and the reassessment proceedings finalized u/s. 148 of the Act, is therefore, held to be invalid. 5. The brief

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

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

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND S5, SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXMP 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

condoned the delay in the case of the appellant vide order F.No. CIT(E)/119(2)(b)/2019-20/60/3132 dated 26.02.2020 A copy of the order was furnished by the appellant during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the delay in filing Form 10 stands addressed. Ground 2 is therefore allowed. 5.8. Ground 3 is discussed below: Section 11(2)(a) provides that

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND 5 SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

condoned the delay in the case of the appellant vide order F.No. CIT(E)/119(2)(b)/2019-20/60/3132 dated 26.02.2020 A copy of the order was furnished by the appellant during appellate proceedings. Therefore, the delay in filing Form 10 stands addressed. Ground 2 is therefore allowed. 5.8. Ground 3 is discussed below: Section 11(2)(a) provides that

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

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

199 ITR 43 (SC), was dispelled and distinguished. In Escorts Limited (supra) the claim for depreciation under Section 32 of the Act was denied as the entire expenditure on the capital asset had been allowed under Section 35(2)(iv) of the Act while computing business profit and loss. Secondly, the Supreme Court was not concerned with the case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 04 DELHI vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed against the Revenue

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

delay of 29 days in filing and 914 days in re-filing the appeal, is condoned. 2. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of. ITA 370/2025 3. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) lays a challenge to the order dated 12.08.2022 in ITA No. 9364/DEL/2019 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed against the

condonation of 38 days delay in filing the appeal and also 906 days delay in refilling the appeal in ITA 329/2025 and 38 days delay in filing the appeal and also 905 days delay in refilling the appeal in ITA 332/2025. 4. For the reasons stated in the applications, we allow the delay in refilling as well as the delay

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