IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said 9 ITA No.3681/Del./2017 that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A

M/S. GREEN LINE (PUNJAB),NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Punjab), Vs Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfg5282H Assessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Delhi), Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaps6803P Assessment Year: 2003-04 Green Line Earth Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg6500C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate & Shri Tarun Aswani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.S. Minhas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and restored the appeal to the file of this Tribunal to hear the matter on merits qua the grounds raised by the assessee. Hence, the appeals of the assessee are admitted for adjudication. ITAs No.1102, 1103 & 1104//Del/2016 4. The only identical issue to be decided in these appeals

M/S. GREEN LINE EARTH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Punjab), Vs Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfg5282H Assessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Delhi), Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaps6803P Assessment Year: 2003-04 Green Line Earth Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg6500C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate & Shri Tarun Aswani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.S. Minhas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and restored the appeal to the file of this Tribunal to hear the matter on merits qua the grounds raised by the assessee. Hence, the appeals of the assessee are admitted for adjudication. ITAs No.1102, 1103 & 1104//Del/2016 4. The only identical issue to be decided in these appeals

M/S. GREEN LINE (DELHI),NEW DELHI vs. ITO (TDS), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Punjab), Vs Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfg5282H Assessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Delhi), Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaps6803P Assessment Year: 2003-04 Green Line Earth Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg6500C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate & Shri Tarun Aswani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.S. Minhas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and restored the appeal to the file of this Tribunal to hear the matter on merits qua the grounds raised by the assessee. Hence, the appeals of the assessee are admitted for adjudication. ITAs No.1102, 1103 & 1104//Del/2016 4. The only identical issue to be decided in these appeals

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

condonation of the delay in filing Form 10B and to claim the benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Page 2 of 10 ITA No.- 3657/Del/2023 Bhagwant Kishore Memorial Educational Society. Act. Being aggrieved with the above order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), this appeal filed by assessee for adjudication. 4. Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

200, Hon'ble ITAT Chennai held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay, appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been 'diligence on part of appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. It is further held that sufficient cause within contemplation of provisions of Section 249(3

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay. Further, the CIT(A) has also decided the issue on merits and hence we have preferred this appeal on these grounds. 3. The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in respect of the TDS statements filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015, the late fee u/s 234E could not have been levied in the intimation order

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay. Further, the CIT(A) has also decided the issue on merits and hence we have preferred this appeal on these grounds. 3. The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in respect of the TDS statements filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015, the late fee u/s 234E could not have been levied in the intimation order

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT - CPC - TDS, GHAIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay. Further, the CIT(A) has also decided the issue on merits and hence we have preferred this appeal on these grounds. 3. The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in respect of the TDS statements filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015, the late fee u/s 234E could not have been levied in the intimation order

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT - CPC - TDS, GHAIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay. Further, the CIT(A) has also decided the issue on merits and hence we have preferred this appeal on these grounds. 3. The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in respect of the TDS statements filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015, the late fee u/s 234E could not have been levied in the intimation order

MEDSAVE HEALTH INSURANCE TPA LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

200 or section 201 or section 234Eand any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest or fee; (e) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the deductor specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, him under clause (d); and (f) the amount of refund

TRIDENT SALES CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 3(4), GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

200 (Chennai); and (v) Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products P. Ltd., vs. DCIT 48 ITD 543 (Ahd.) 4. Submissions of both sides heard on the issue of condonation of delay, reasons given in the condonation application examined and case laws on which ld. DR has placed reliance considered. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. Referring to ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings in as much as the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reasons

MOHD. JAWED,BIJNOR vs. ITO WARD - 3(3), BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

section 271(l)(c) are not applicable. 3. That this vary fact was ignored by the learned CIT(Appeal), that penalty was imposed on the basis of estimate of income and so the estimated profit @8%. Income assessed was based on estimate basis. As Assessee’s profit was Rs. 158520/-. against Rs. 430010/- declared. In the order of assessment

PASCHION RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 4331 To 4334/Del/2025 [Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15]

200/- as the assessee had filed Quarterly Statement on 18.10.2013 for this Quarter. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 2052 days which was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in limine by not condoning the delay by observing that no sufficient cause for delay was stated by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved