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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

condonation of delay scheme for filing the returns. In view of the above, it was felt necessary to make enquiries both with Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. and SFIO (the Nodal Authority maintaining the database) to know, if any, proceedings were pending with respect to Hallow Securities Pyt Ltd. with SFIO and whether M/s. Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. had been regular

VINOD KUMAR SHARMA ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 71(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condonation of delay and mentioned that all the grounds of Appeal remained the same. 2. The the CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.24,53,910 by the AO Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) on the ground that there was delay in deposit of employees contribution under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 disregarding

PRISMA,MORADABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

condoned. Copy of deposited challans are enclosed. The intention of the assessee was never malafide and he always thought about the welfare of employees as they all are part of his extended business family. The intention of legislature is also not to penalize the assessee by imposing tax, but it motivates to deposit tax in time, and assessee did major

DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. EAGLE HUNTER SOLUTIONS LTD, NEE DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment of employee contributions towards PF/ESI.” 3. Perused the material before us and heard the arguments of ld. DR. Delay condoned

ANIL KUMAR SHARMA,HARYANA vs. CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condoned. 3. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee herein has challenged the disallowance of Rs.19,19,534/- on account of delayed payment of employee’s contribution towards EPF and ESI. 4. When the matter was called for hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri M.R. Sahu, CA submitted that the impugned employee’s contribution towards PF and ESIC

NEELKANTH INFERTILITY AND IVF HOSPITAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special Leave

BMK BUSINESS HOTELS & RESORTS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special Leave

NARANG SCIENTIFIC WORKS,C-255 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special Leave

KAILASH HOSPITAL & METERNITY ,UTTARPRADESH vs. WARD 1(1)(3), UTTARPARDESH

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special Leave

JAMAN LAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special Leave

MULTI MAX ENGINEERING WORK PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 17(2), DELHI

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special Leave