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 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

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

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. REED HYCALOG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross- objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

234B and 234C of the Act shall be levied to the appellant.” 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the entire material available on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has done good reasoned order in respect of profit determined by the ld. CIT(A) @ 1.34% on direct sales and 10% on consignment sales. The findings

JAGDISH SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Delay condoned Application ‘It is requested, to kindly provide the sufficient and reasonable time, opportunity for hearing before taking any decision” in reply filed on 21.02.2019 in continuation of reply dated 12.02.2019 against Notice dt. 28.01.2019 related to F. No. CIT(A)GZB/2018-19/1527. ii. That the Ld. CIT (A) has not considered the circumstances for not appearing before the concerning

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

B R HOSPITAL AND RESARCH INSTITUTE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 143(1) in the facts and circumstances of the case of appellant. 6. That the Ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) erred in upholding the intimation passed by Assessing Officer (Dy. CIT, CPC) u/s 143(1) dated 21.05.2019 disallowing application of income of Rs. 7,02,026/- without appreciating that details of Audit Report u/s 10B was provided in return, hence claim

M/S. VALLEY IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2011-12

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. If any. B. That under the facts and circumstances. there existed a reasonable cause and justifiable reasons for not depositing the self' - asstt. Tax within the time prescribed u/s 249 (4). hence. the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee failed in proving that there was a serious financial crunch

DCIT, INT. TAX.,.CIRCLE GURGAON, GURGAON vs. ZTE CORPORATION , CHINA

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

ZTE CORPORATION,CHINA vs. JCIT (OSD) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

ZTE CORPORATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GURGAON

condoned the delay in filing of appeal for AY 2016- 17, to avoid duplication, the cross-objection filed by the Assessee in Department's appeal on identical grounds is treated as academic and disposed off accordingly. SA No.364/Del/2020 & CO No.07/Del/2021 ZTE Corporation vs. DCIT & Ors. 11. Having held the above, we now embark on the merits of the matter

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

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 Tax Act (hereinafter

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

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 of this

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

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 and upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) alongwith interest

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