SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 2.2That conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi that "accordingly, appellant's all grounds of appeal are dismissed as not maintainable and thereby appellant two appeals

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the above matter requires factual verification, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. Ground

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the above matter requires factual verification, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. Ground

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

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

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VASANT VIHAR DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

234A and 234B of the Act on the above additions made in the assessment order. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or omit any of the above grounds of appeal as the circumstances may warrant.” 2.1 In nutshell, the sole issue for determination, other than the interest charged and initiation of penalty under the Income

MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act. The interest has been imposed without considering the facts of the case and is not justified. That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing

BHAWNA PAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(7), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

234A of the Act, interest of Rs. 13,65,856/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts of the appellant.” It is therefore prayed that, it be held that order disposing of the appeal expartee by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside It is therefore, prayed that, the addition made

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

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

sections": [ "147", "144", "2(22)(e)", "148", "151", "127", "129", "234A", "234B", "234D", "244A", "143(1)", "143(3)", "153", "154", "155", "150(1)", "150(2)" ], "issues": "1. Condonation of delay

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

The appeal is disposed of

delay and justification for deferment of advance tax, loses significance and importance. Whatever be the reason, when there is deferment in payment of advance tax as the stipulated amount has not been paid on the required date as per Section 211, compensatory interest under Section 234C becomes payable. It does not matter if there was a good cause or sufficient

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

The appeal is disposed of

delay and justification for deferment of advance tax, loses significance and importance. Whatever be the reason, when there is deferment in payment of advance tax as the stipulated amount has not been paid on the required date as per Section 211, compensatory interest under Section 234C becomes payable. It does not matter if there was a good cause or sufficient

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

The appeal is disposed of

delay and justification for deferment of advance tax, loses significance and importance. Whatever be the reason, when there is deferment in payment of advance tax as the stipulated amount has not been paid on the required date as per Section 211, compensatory interest under Section 234C becomes payable. It does not matter if there was a good cause or sufficient

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

234A & 234B of the Act altogether?" 5. Whether the voluntary contributions received by a political party in view of Section 13-A is income per se and whether expenditure incurred by a political party for political purposes or for aims and objects of the political party can be allowed as a deduction for calculating income, when conditions of the first

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

234A & 234B of the Act altogether?" 5. Whether the voluntary contributions received by a political party in view of Section 13-A is income per se and whether expenditure incurred by a political party for political purposes or for aims and objects of the political party can be allowed as a deduction for calculating income, when conditions of the first

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

234A & 234B of the Act altogether?" 5. Whether the voluntary contributions received by a political party in view of Section 13-A is income per se and whether expenditure incurred by a political party for political purposes or for aims and objects of the political party can be allowed as a deduction for calculating income, when conditions of the first

SOREGAM SA,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblesoregam Sa Vs Ddit C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Circle-3(2) 7Th Floor, Building No. 10 Intl. Taxation, Block-E2, Civil Tower B, Dlf Cyber City Complex, Centre, Jln Marg Dlf City Phase-Ii New Delhi Gurgaon Aaocs3856K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 234A the Act. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, DRP has erred in not examining the validity of such initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that there is delay of 2 days in filing of the present appeal. The Ld. AR submitted that