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

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 the appeal by not condoning the delay. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court which was disposed of in ITA 744/2018 in the case

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

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 the appeal by not condoning the delay. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court which was disposed of in ITA 744/2018 in the case

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING 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

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

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

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

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under section 154 of the Act and not from the date