SURESH KUMAR,SIRSA vs. ITO TDS, HISAR

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

206 of the Act and consequently, the additions of Rs.8,57,070/- u/s. 206C(6A) and of Rs.94,667/- u/s. 206C(7) of the Act were made by the AO. 3.1 Against the said additions, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner and in column No. 15 of Form No. 35 described thereason of condonation of delay

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GURGAON

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The appeals were initially heard on 09.05.2024 and reserved for orders. Again on 20.05.2024, the matters have been fixed

KRISHNA ENTERPRISES,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), GURGAON

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Sh. Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2018-19 & 2019-20 respectively. 2. Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee, these are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The appeals were initially heard on 09.05.2024 and reserved for orders. Again on 20.05.2024, the matters have been fixed

AMRIK SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR KAWALPREET KAUR,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalamrik Singh Through Legal Heir Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Kawalpreet Kaur, 1(5), Ghaziabad, 206, Ground Floor, Niti Khand-1, Uttar Pradesh Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Pan: Achps0677E Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Challenging The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ghaziabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 31/08/2018 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Appellant. Considering The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal We Deem It Fit To Decide The Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Department'S Representative & Perused The Material Available On Record.

206, Ground Floor, Niti Khand-1, Uttar Pradesh Indirapuram, Ghaziabad PAN: ACHPS0677E Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement 18/03/2026 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: This appeal is filed by the legal heir of the Assessee challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ghaziabad

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

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

SANDEEP KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO - WARD 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and dealing in all kinds of blankets in the trade name of “M/s. Khurana Wooltex”, filed his return of income on 26.09.2018, declaring total income

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

BHARAT BHUSHAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. Nos. 3811 & 3812/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Shri Bharat Bhushan, Ito, Vs Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward : 1 (5) Rdc Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Ghaziabad. Pan: Aefpb3317N Uttar Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent)

206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward : 1 (5) RDC Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Ghaziabad. PAN: AEFPB3317N Uttar Pradesh. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.; Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 17.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 23.11.2020 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders dated 19/02/2019

BHARAT BHUSHAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. Nos. 3811 & 3812/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Shri Bharat Bhushan, Ito, Vs Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward : 1 (5) Rdc Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Ghaziabad. Pan: Aefpb3317N Uttar Pradesh. (Appellant) (Respondent)

206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward : 1 (5) RDC Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Ghaziabad. PAN: AEFPB3317N Uttar Pradesh. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.; Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing 17.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement 23.11.2020 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders dated 19/02/2019

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

SARABJIT SINGH,AMBALA vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

206 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay. The delay was caused due to serious illness of wife of the assessee duly supported by medical records of the hospital. The delay is condoned. The Ld. DR had no objection. 4. The case of the assessee was reopened under section