THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MODIPON LTD.

delay is condoned. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 196/2023 2. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 1987-88. The appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”]. 3. The short issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether interest under Section 220

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

220(2) of the Act on the same amount for the same period. Under the existing scheme of payment of TDS and TCS, Government deductors/collectors are allowed to make payment of tax deducted/collected by them without production of challan i.e. through book entry…………………… [This para has been truncated as not relevant] Under section 192 of the Act, the person responsible

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

220(2) of the Act on the same amount for the same period. Under the existing scheme of payment of TDS and TCS, Government deductors/collectors are allowed to make payment of tax deducted/collected by them without production of challan i.e. through book entry…………………… [This para has been truncated as not relevant] Under section 192 of the Act, the person responsible

MANTRAM COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 28.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.1,46,020/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case

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.

Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, we have heard

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.

Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, we have heard

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.

Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act vide order dated 29/03/2019. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred the above three appeals. Since similar questions raises for consideration, the above appeals are heard together. 5. There is a delay in filing the appeal, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, we have heard

MOVEFAST AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

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

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

delay of 23 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following concise grounds of appeal:- ““1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 85,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

NELUMBO PAINTS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), HARYANA

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

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

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 93,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

MANHAR YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

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

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

delay of 23 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96300,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium and share

MADHAVA HOME DECOR PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), FARIDABAD

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

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

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

MOVEFAST TOUR & TRAVELS PVT. LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 96/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Plot No. 1066, Baba Nagar, Near Ward-1(5) Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad, C. R. Building, Faridabad Haryana Haryana Pan No. Aaicm2608P ( Respondent ) ( Appellant )

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2 Movefast Tour & Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after allowing an opportunity to the Appellant. Thereafter, the CIT (A) passed an order dated 30th January 2004 sustaining some of the additions made by the AO. 13. The Assessee also filed an application before the CIT (A) under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the order dated 30th

ABHI SOAPS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the return for A.Y. 2016-17 was filed by the assessee declaring an income of Rs.1,17,080/-. Later on the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued. The assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GRAPECITY INDIA P. LTD.

delay of 220 days in re-filing the appeal is condone. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. . . ITA 947/2010 page 1 of 2. . . ITA 947/2010 The present appeal preferred under Section

NEERAJ KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, BAROT, BAROT

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3067/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Neeraj Kumar Ito Vs. House No. 5, Rana Farm Barot. House, Manshi Vihar, Sector-23, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Dmtpk8828J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condone the failure or delay in issuing the statutory notice required to be issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. Section 292BB I.T.A.No.3067/Del/2018 deals with failure of service of notice and not with regard to failure to issue notice. (CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All. HC), CIT vs. Ponorama Builders (P) Ltd., (2014) 224 Taxman

ASHWANI KUMAR AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJOURI GARDEN vs. ITO WARD 3(3), C.R. BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Chella Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

condone the failure or delay in issuing the statutory notice required to be issued under section 143(2) of the Act. Section 292BB deals with failure of service of notice and not with regard to failure to issue notice. [See: CIT v. Rajeev Sharma [2010] 192 Taxman 197/[2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.), CIT v. Panorama Builders

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

220(2) of the Act. 34. Aggrieved by the said penalty order the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 05.05.2017 along with application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The grounds raised before Ld. CIT(A) are as under: “1. That the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but also

IYCWORLD SOFTINFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL - TDS

In the result, in ITA No. 906, 907 & 908/Del/2024 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

condonation of delay, wherein appeals were filed beyond the period prescribed. The assessee had filed appeals against the order passed under section 154 of the Act, hence the time period of appeals filed by assessee before the CIT(A) have to be computed from the date of order passed under section 154 of the Act and not from the date