VOITH HYDRO P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

207 days late, but the delay was condoned. The core issue revolves around the interplay of Section 144C and Section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

RAM DHAN BHUTANI,HISAR vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: N.K. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11 Ram Dhan Bhutani, Ito, H. No. 1534, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Hisar Sector-14, Hisar Pan-Abqpb8764M (Appellant) (Respondent)

207 days in so doing. The reason for the delay is that due to the serious illness i.e. Cancer to my wife Sudesh Kumari and I was disturbed and busy in treatment of my wife. Hence, matter could not be attended. The second reason for the delay is that the impugned order of fhe Ld. CIT(A) was passed even

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

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

207 ITR 622 (Guj), the Gujarat High Court considered the question whether the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Samiti (‘GPCS’) was an independent taxable entity. 10.2 The facts there were that the Income Tax Officer (‘ITO’) served a notice under Section 148 of the Act on the GPCS for AYs 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 on the basis that

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

207 ITR 622 (Guj), the Gujarat High Court considered the question whether the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Samiti (‘GPCS’) was an independent taxable entity. 10.2 The facts there were that the Income Tax Officer (‘ITO’) served a notice under Section 148 of the Act on the GPCS for AYs 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 on the basis that

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

207 ITR 622 (Guj), the Gujarat High Court considered the question whether the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Samiti (‘GPCS’) was an independent taxable entity. 10.2 The facts there were that the Income Tax Officer (‘ITO’) served a notice under Section 148 of the Act on the GPCS for AYs 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 on the basis that

GURUDWARA SHRI GURU SINGH SABHA,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay has not been condoned. We find that there are catena of cases where the hon’ble High Courts have held that the filing of Form 10/audit report is directory and not mandatory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the Page 3 of 6 ITA No. 1878/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh

IL AND FS ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(1) DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

section 144 of Rs. 29,04,23,207. 7. Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 & 2 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of capital work in progress written off of Rs. 7,68,11,914. The Appellant prays before Your Honour that the Ld. AO be directed

DEVESH CINEMAS,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 6. Brief facts of the case are that, return declaring income of Rs. 5,95,220/- was e-filed by the assessee on 13/09/2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

DAYALU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 6. Brief facts of the case are that, return declaring income of Rs. 5,95,220/- was e-filed by the assessee on 13/09/2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

DAYALU IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 6. Brief facts of the case are that, return declaring income of Rs. 5,95,220/- was e-filed by the assessee on 13/09/2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS