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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

15. It was further submitted by Mr Parag Tripathi that in any event the non-appearance of the appellant was not without reason. He submitted that as indicated by the various replies furnished by the appellant, there was a serious threat to his personal safety. Of course, this has not been believed by the authorities below but, according

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

condone the delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

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

2. We heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the records mainly on the aspect of delay in original filing of these present appeals, before considering the delay in re-filing the same after removal of Registry objections. 3. Both these appeals brought under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the revenue assail the common order dated

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

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

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

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

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), 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

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), 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

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the sa d application is pending adjudication before CBDT. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,28,15

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the sa d application is pending adjudication before CBDT. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,28,15

M/S. DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the sa d application is pending adjudication before CBDT. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,28,15

M/S DOON VALLEY SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result all the above four appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by this common order

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidoon Valley Special Area Vs. Cit (Exemption), Development Authority, Tc 46V, Up State 12, Pritam Road, Construction & Dehradun Infrastructure Development Pan: Aaald0125F Corporation, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay to the CBDT under Section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act and the sa d application is pending adjudication before CBDT. Ground No. 3: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,28,15

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Director General of the Income Tax (Exemption) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Two separate orders were passed by the Income