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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

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

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

24(x) and then a deduction is allowed u/s.36(1)(va) if the said amount is deposited in the Government account before the due date as provided in clause (va) of Section 36(1) as defined in Explanation-1 which means the due date provided under the relevant Act governing the relevant fund. However, the Hon’ble High Courts have

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

DCIT,CIRCLE 7(1) , NEW DELHI vs. EAGLE HUNTER SOLUTION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

condone the delay of 65 days in filing appeal as there is no deliberate omission or negligence or fault on the party of appellant in filing delayed appeal. Thus appeal is admitted for hearing. Ground no. 1 & 2 of Revenue 5. The ld. Senior DR submitted that under the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the ITAT are also set-aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/Revenue

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

2(24)(x) of the Act of 1961 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(1)(a) by order dated 16.12.2021 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the CIT (Appeals) and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the ITAT are also set-aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/Revenue

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

24)(x) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI made in the intimation u/s.143(1), without appreciating the fact that employees contribution to PF and ESI are recovered from the employees on disbursement of salary and wages Accordingly, due date for deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI i.e. within 15 days

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

24)(x) on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI made in the intimation u/s.143(1), without appreciating the fact that employees contribution to PF and ESI are recovered from the employees on disbursement of salary and wages Accordingly, due date for deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI i.e. within 15 days

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

x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period

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

x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period

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

x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period

SUGANDH,MORADABAD vs. ITD, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

Delay is condoned. 4.2 The observations of the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. In this case, the appellant had made payments from the contributions made by the employees to Provident Fund and ESI fund, in various month of financial year 2017-18. The appellant claimed these payments as deductions from the total

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V vs. P.M.ELECTRONICS LTD.

24)(x) and Section 43B. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction and added a sum of Rs 17,94,042/- towards EPF contribution. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to in short as the „CIT(A)‟]. The CIT(A) after considering the matter while accepting the view

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. P M ELECTRONICS LTD

24)(x) and Section 43B. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction and added a sum of Rs 17,94,042/- towards EPF contribution. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to in short as the „CIT(A)‟]. The CIT(A) after considering the matter while accepting the view

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

delayed payment by the purchaser which assessee has calculated to be @ 24%. Nowhere, as held by the Ld. CIT(A), it has been found or there is even mention in any seized document that interest rate so calculated has been realised from the said party. The AO has made the addition on the ground that, section 132(4A) raises