M/S. DD RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue being dismissed

Bench: Sh I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi. Dd Resorts Pvt Ltd., Acit, 12, Ring Road, Cc-12, New Vs. Lajpat Nagar, Iv, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacd4557E (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Dd Resorts Pvt Ltd., Cc-12, New 12, Ring Road, Vs. Delhi Lajpat Nagar, Iv, New Delhi Pan:Aaacd4557E (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act and when assessee has not been show caused u/s 221 of the Act then it cannot be presumed that the assessee was given an opportunity to discharge the required onus incumbent upon him to prove to the satisfaction of the AO that the default was for “good and sufficient reason” as required per second proviso

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

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

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

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

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

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

1 year and 9 months (635 days). The period of delay is\ntabulated as under:\nSl. No.\nParticulars\nDate\nPeriod of Delay\n1\nDate of receipt of order issued | 26.12.2018\nu/s 143(3) of the Act\n2\nDue date for filing of appeal\n25.01.2019\n3\nDate of filing of appeal\n06.10.2020\n4\nTotal Days Delay\n635\n5\nPeriod of Delay

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI 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

1 year and 9 months (635 days). The period of delay is\ntabulated as under:\nSl. No.\nParticulars\nDate\nPeriod of Delay\n1\nDate of receipt of order issued\nu/s 143(3) of the Act\n26.12.2018\n2\nDue date for filing of appeal\n25.01.2019\n3\nDate of filing of appeal\n06.10.2020\n4\nTotal Days Delay\n635\n5\nPeriod of Delay

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

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a private limited company who filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 129603/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010 the ld Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are complexity in the accounts of the assessee and in the interest of revenue its books

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

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

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

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