PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, buter limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. This explanation was given in regard to delay of 238 days commencing from 15.3.2020 to 7.11.2020. 9. For the balance period of 1299 days

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)

section 221(1) of the Act. 28 ITA Nos.6810/Del/2019 & Ors. Swadesh Kumar Mishra vs. ACIT 36. The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 221(1) of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. However

M/S PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

section 156 of the Act on assessee on 21.11.2006, despite the fact that, it had not been disputed that no Notice of demand had been served on assessee in Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT respect of the said order of assessment and time to file an appeal commences with the service of notice of demand and no valid appeal could

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

NAV BHARAT STONE CRUSHER,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHIWANI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assesse's claim. 3. Submissions in respect of Issues involved: 3.1 Submissions against rejection of condonation of delay 3.1.1 It is reiterated that the addition first came to the knowledge of the assessee only when the notice of demand u/s 221

BRAHAM DUTT SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2013-14

section 246/249/250 of I.T. Act. 5. That even otherwise too, the appeal could not be filed electronically on account of lack of legal knowledge/advice involving no deliberate default on the part of appellant. That the appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add anyone or more grounds. PRAYER That keeping in view the settled law when substantial justice and technical considerations

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub- section does not deduct the whole or any part

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

delay occurred in filing the present appeal is, therefore, condoned. 3. The brief facts relevant to the issue are that the appellant purchased a property at 1st Floor, E-180, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi from Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi S/o Mr. LY Vahi and Smt Pomila Vahi w/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi, both non-residents

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