ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 5.1. However, there is a delay of 1726 days in filing the above Cross objection by the assessee. In this regard, the assessee filed Condonation petition which is reproduced as under:- Sub: Request for condonation of delay in filing of cross objections before Hon'ble ITAT MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS

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

condoned in respect of the bank, then the matter even in so far as the appellant is concerned would be over. 19. He further submitted that the order dated 03.03.2011 whereby the respondent No. 3 revoked the passport of the appellant was bad for another reason. The reason being that the said order dated 03.03.2011 refers to diversion of Foreign

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

delay of 99 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee is a senior citizen and does not carry any business activities. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold a residential property at 197-A, Saket, Meerut for a consideration

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. 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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

condoning the delay of 1537 days without any reasonable\ncause?\nThe facts of the cases are that the assessee is a public limited company\nengaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery. It has\nfiled his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.11.2015\ndeclaring total income at ₹4,22,28,69,410/-under the normal

M/S. PEGASUS SOFTECH (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee