DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

22 questions of law were framed by this Court on 21.11.2011 in ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010 and 775/2010, which are as follows: - “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

22 questions of law were framed by this Court on 21.11.2011 in ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010 and 775/2010, which are as follows: - “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

22 questions of law were framed by this Court on 21.11.2011 in ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010 and 775/2010, which are as follows: - “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, lacks credibility.Hence, the assessee’s appeal is held to be barred by Limitation, having regard to Section 253(3) read with Section 253(5) of I. T. Act. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted, and is dismissed in limine. Page 20 of 22

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delayed by 2947 days. In this regard, the assessee filed a condonation application dated 09.06.2023 as well as an affidavit dated 09.06.2023. In the case of the assessee, addition under Section 2(22

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 34 of the Act wherein the prescribed period of limitation is provided. The application is, therefore, dismissed. OMP No.389/2012 In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in re-filing, being I.A.No.7650/2012, the present petition is dismissed. (MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE APRIL 22

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

Section 14.\"\n\n7. In view of the judicial pronouncements and the absence of any\njustification or sufficient cause having been shown, we find ourselves\nunable to sustain the prayer for condonation of delay.\"\n\n18. As we discussed above and respectfully following the judicial\nprecents cited hereinbefore, we made it clear that we are not\ninclined to discuss

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

22 on 23.12.2021 by declaring total income at NIL and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20.09.2022 by determining the total income of Rs. 39,32,700/-. Being aggrieved from the above order, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating that

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

condoning the delay of 1537 days without any reasonable\ncause?\nThe facts of the cases are that the assessee is a public limited company\nengaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery. It has\nfiled his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.11.2015\ndeclaring total income at ₹4,22,28,69,410/-under the normal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.,, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is just and proper, therefore, we do not find any merit in these grounds of appeal. These Grounds in Departmental Appeal are dismissed. 15. The Ld. D.R. also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A because the case of the assessee