NITIN KUMAR,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(5), SAHARANPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. The sole ground raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,07,526/- being 50% of interest on enhance compensation on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land received u/s. 28 of land acquisition Act 1894, and holding

M/S DIGITE INC. USA,USA vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC.,CALIFORINA vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC. USA,PUNE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

KARMA ECOTECH PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRLE 13(1), NEW DLHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

condonation of delay u/s 119(2) of the Act.” Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that there was a delay of only 18 days in filing of the Form which was filed before the due date for filing of return but beyond the prescribed due date

BILL & PEGGY MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

208 to 211, interest under Section 234C is chargeable. Interest under Section 234C is required to be calculated and mentioned in the return of income and is payable along with self assessment tax by the assessee. The aforesaid sections have been held to be constitutional valid in several decisions of the High Courts on the ground that the interest provisions

BILL & PEGGY MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

208 to 211, interest under Section 234C is chargeable. Interest under Section 234C is required to be calculated and mentioned in the return of income and is payable along with self assessment tax by the assessee. The aforesaid sections have been held to be constitutional valid in several decisions of the High Courts on the ground that the interest provisions

BILL & PEGGY MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

208 to 211, interest under Section 234C is chargeable. Interest under Section 234C is required to be calculated and mentioned in the return of income and is payable along with self assessment tax by the assessee. The aforesaid sections have been held to be constitutional valid in several decisions of the High Courts on the ground that the interest provisions

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

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the assessee case are that, the assessee filed return declared income of RS. 2,74,730/- which has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued. The case

J S EXIM PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay is thus condoned and the matter is proceeded for hearing on merits. 4. Briefly stated, the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of letting of commercial property and deriving income under various heads viz; business income, income from house property and income from other sources’. For the Assessment Year 2013-14 in question

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-28(5), DELHI vs. RAJENDER, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajender, Ward 28(5), Room No. 1202, 448, Chauhan Mohalla, Block E, Civic Centre, Vs Madanpura Khadar, Sarita Delhi 110002 Vihar, Delhi - 110076 Pan- Avqpr9368B Revenue Assessee Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, Ca Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 30.04.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10229136 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 20.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 Of The Act.

section 115BBE of the Act are invoked; 3. Interest received of Rs.1,93,496/- from Punjab and Sindh Bank taxed as income from other sources. 3. Against this order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and filed additional evidence in support of the claim alongwith the appeal memo. The ld. CIT(A) send all these evidences

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO vs. MUNDRA AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 147 r.w.s.144 B of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter referred as 'the Act'].\n2. The appeal is time barred by 42 days. Cause stated by the\nRevenue is sufficient to condone the delay, therefore the delay is\ncondoned.\n3. The revenue has raised the following grounds in the appeal:\n“1.\nWhether on the facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AB, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

delay is condoned. 4. The first major issue raised by the assessee in his appeal is against the addition of Rs.6,23,15,808/- made by the AO on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which was reduced to Rs.5,57,09,134/- vide rectification order u/s. 154 dated 09.12.2014. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

M/S. SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL AB (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

delay is condoned. 4. The first major issue raised by the assessee in his appeal is against the addition of Rs.6,23,15,808/- made by the AO on account of transfer pricing adjustment, which was reduced to Rs.5,57,09,134/- vide rectification order u/s. 154 dated 09.12.2014. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

FORTIS HOSPITALS LTD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 9(2) NEW DELHI

Bench: The Learned

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. ITA 132 of 2021 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) challenging the Order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned ITAT, Bench ‘B’, New Delhi, in I.T.A. No. 2910/DEL/2017, titled ACIT, Circle

FORTIS HOSPITALS LTD

Bench: The Learned

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. ITA 132 of 2021 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) challenging the Order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned ITAT, Bench ‘B’, New Delhi, in I.T.A. No. 2910/DEL/2017, titled ACIT, Circle