USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee has also filed stay petition in this appeal. ITA No. 6564 & S.A. No. 588/Del./2016 2 2. The present appeal has been filed by assessee with a delay of 7 days for which the assessee has filed application for condonation of delay stating that the husband of assessee

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

2. The issues involved in all these appeals pertaining to different assessees are identical, hence, we deem it fit to pass a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, there is a delay in filing the appeal of 8 ½ months by the assessee before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, in the first round of appeal had dismissed

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

2. The issues involved in all these appeals pertaining to different assessees are identical, hence, we deem it fit to pass a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, there is a delay in filing the appeal of 8 ½ months by the assessee before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, in the first round of appeal had dismissed

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

2. The issues involved in all these appeals pertaining to different assessees are identical, hence, we deem it fit to pass a common order for the sake of convenience. 3. At the outset, there is a delay in filing the appeal of 8 ½ months by the assessee before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, in the first round of appeal had dismissed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu. & Shri T.S. Kapoor

delay in issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act would be fatal to the re-assessment proceedings. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that as far as the second ground is concerned, the Petitioner should succeed. In that view of the matter, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the first ground

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

201(1A) of the Act in the light of CBDT Circular No.8/2009 dated 24.11.2009 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, where the Assessee itself was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 121 of 2010, wherein it has been held that section 194J applies to the payments made by the petitioners to juristic or corporate

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. 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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay of 103 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 2 of 46 ITA 304/2025 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2, New Delhi under

B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2) When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessees and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. B R Hospital and Research Institute vs. ITO (b) Further, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

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