PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

MAXX SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3499/Del/2023 (A.Y 2018-19)

202 - ITD - 837 - Delhi). “11. Thus, in our opinion, considering the fact that the due date for depositing the contribution of ESIC & EPF falls on Sunday and gazetted holiday, the said delay of one day deserves to be condoned as per Section

NIRANJAN LAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

202/- as per revised Page 3 of 10 ITA. No. 6244/Del/2018 return, there is huge difference gross receipts of the assessee’s turnover. In the absence of books of accounts and documentary evidences, it is not possible determine assessee’s real income. The contention of the assessee that someone has filed his ITR is also found to be incorrect

KAVITA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 34(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

202/- as per revised return, there is huge difference gross receipts of the assessee's turnover. In the absence of books of accounts and documentary evidences, it is not possible determine assessee's real income. The contention of the assessee that someone has filed his ITR is also found to be incorrect as the same cannot be filed without 'Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. ARJUN ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.5 & 6 raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanacit , Vs. Arjun Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 711, Filix Commercial Complex, Opp Asian Paints L.Bs Marg Bhandup W Mumbai 400078 Maharashtra (Pan: Aahca 1448 A)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs.1,25,37,270/- on 30.10.2018 which was processed on 17.05.2019 by the CPC. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS to verify ‘assessee has made substantial purchases from suppliers

VEG 'N' TABLE,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- INT. TAX 3(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 . Veg ‘N’ Table, Vs. Dcit, 801, Tower-A 1, Circle- International Tax - Ansal Corporate Park, 3(1)(1), Sector-142, Delhi Noida Pan :Aagcv2131A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to taxability of long-term capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee under Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). 5. Briefly the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

delay in filing of appeal was condoned. Further the case was\nheard on merit. It was contended by the Goan Sabha that there were two reports\npresented by the Halqa Patwari in Court of Revenue Assistant at different points\nof time in which dimension/area covered by Kothi in suit land is different. In\none report

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN vs. KRSKA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

delay is condoned and cross objection is admitted. 8. Firstly we take the ground of the cross objection which is legal. The Ld. AR for the assessee has raised the legal issue and stated that the notice dated 27-07-2022 issued by AO u/s 148 of the Act is time barred. In this regard he has submitted as under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITA 193/2024 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), impugning an order dated Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:17.12.2024 16:17:45 Signature Not Verified ITA 193/2024 Page 2 of 13 09.01.2019 (hereafter

TULSI DAS,NOIDA UP vs. ITO WARD 3(5), NOIDA UP

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Learned Commissioner

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. There is a delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal. 8. After considering the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Therefore, I admit the appeal for adjudications after condoning

TULSI DAS,NOIDA UP vs. ITO WARD 3(5), NOIDA UP

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Learned Commissioner

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. There is a delay of 202 days in filing the present appeal. 8. After considering the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is due to reasonable cause. Therefore, I admit the appeal for adjudications after condoning

M/S ONE MOBIKWIK SYSTEMS LTD,GURGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 All the three appeals are revolving around a common issue and hence were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. The appeal vide ITA No.7830 for AY-2015-16 is taken as lead year for factual analysis. The decision taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis

M/S ONE MOBIKWIK SYSTEMS LTD,GURGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD). TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 All the three appeals are revolving around a common issue and hence were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. The appeal vide ITA No.7830 for AY-2015-16 is taken as lead year for factual analysis. The decision taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis

ONE MOBIKWIK SYSTEMS P.LTD,GURGAON vs. JCIT(OSD), TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 3.0 All the three appeals are revolving around a common issue and hence were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. The appeal vide ITA No.7830 for AY-2015-16 is taken as lead year for factual analysis. The decision taken therein shall apply mutatis mutandis

FISERV INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishifiserv India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Regus Elegance, Level-2, Jasola Circle-9(1), District Centre, Old Mathura New Delhi Road, Delhi Pan: Aaccr0787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

202,999,837 made by the learned assessing officer, MAT credit allowed by the AO of Rs. 56,828,807/– was not allowable to the assessee in A.Y. 2013 – 14. Therefore, MAT credit availed by the assessee and allowed by the AO was not correct. Therefore, the learned AO held that this is the mistake apparent from record, which resulted

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AVA MERCHANDISING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 2(22)(e) reads as under: "dividend" includes- (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan to a shareholder, being

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S AAA PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the department and Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 5112/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Aaa Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-15, 2-A, Shankar Market, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca1931B Co No. 19/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 M/S Aaa Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 202, 1St Floor, Okhla Indl. Estate, Tax, Central Circle-15, Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca1931B Assessee By : Sh. R. M. Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

202, 1st Floor, Okhla Indl. Estate, Tax, Central Circle-15, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACA1931B Assessee by : Sh. R. M. Mehta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, DR Date of Hearing : 07.04.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 08.04.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: The appeal by the department and the Cross Objection