ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

condonation of delay. That is how, there are three appeals by the Department for each of the years, namely, one original consolidated appeal by the Revenue under both the ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 sub-sections of section 201 and then separate appeals for quantum and interest. 4.2. The ld. AR argued that separate appeals filed by the Revenue

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.J. INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

condonation of delay. That is how, there are three appeals by the Department for each of the years, namely, one original consolidated appeal by the Revenue under both the ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 sub-sections of section 201 and then separate appeals for quantum and interest. 4.2. The ld. AR argued that separate appeals filed by the Revenue

M/S. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm

condonation of delay. That is how, there are three appeals by the Department for each of the years, namely, one original consolidated appeal by the Revenue under both the ITA Nos.21,22, 25&26/Del/2015 sub-sections of section 201 and then separate appeals for quantum and interest. 4.2. The ld. AR argued that separate appeals filed by the Revenue

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

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 (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

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

201(1) r.w. Rule 31ACB of IT Rules, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. However this opportunity was denied at the threshold by the authorities below. iv. The 2nd Proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been inserted in the statute by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

CIT vs. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING

Delay condoned. . Leave granted. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this batch of civil appeals:- "Whether the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 2OL(1) and 201

CIT vs. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Delay condoned. . Leave granted. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this batch of civil appeals:- "Whether the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 2OL(1) and 201

ALLAHABAD BANK,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 6052/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2002-03 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Vasundhra (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F) In Ita No. 6044/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2002-03 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Delhi Gate (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F) In Ita No. 6049/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2002-03 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Ingraham Institute (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F) In Ita No. 6050/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2003-04 Allahabad Bank Vs. Ito Ingraham Institute (Tds/Survey) Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aacca8464F)

condonation of delay and consequently the dismissal of appeal on technical ground without considering sufficient cause is bad in law. 3) That in the absence of a show cause notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the assumption of jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 201(1)/201

CIT vs. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this batch of civil appeals:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct In law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 201(1

CIT vs. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this batch of civil appeals:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct In law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 201(1

CIT vs. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this batch of civil appeals:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders passed under Sections 201(1