DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 12A and 80G of the Act, which were followed up by another set of applications filed directly with the DIT (Exemptions) on 21.12.2005; these applications were obviously delayed and the condonation application was filed on 14.03.2006 narrating the events that led to the delay. 19. In the above circumstances, it seems to us that the Tribunal has acted judicially

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, lacks credibility.Hence, the assessee’s appeal is held to be barred by Limitation, having regard to Section 253(3) read with Section 253(5) of I. T. Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted, and is dismissed in limine. Page 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHINE STAR BUILDCON 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KING BUILDCON 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GEE GEE 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS P. 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KING BUILDCON 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

M/S LKG BUILDERS (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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

M/S LKG BUILDERS (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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

M/S LKG BUILDERS (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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

M/S ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS (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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PEGASUS SOFTECH 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

M/S KING BUILDCON (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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS 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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

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

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

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

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

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is cancelled on the same reasons. He has submitted that assessment order is appealable, therefore, nominal delay was rightly condoned. 14. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in condoning the nominal delay of 20