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

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

M/S. BHARTI (RM) HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bharti (Rm) Holdings Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4(2), New Delhi 1, Bharti Crescent, Nelson Mandela Road, Phase-Ii, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi Pan :Aadcb2326A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Anil Bhall, Fca Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.Dr

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2 2) Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in not considering the appellant company’s written submissions filed on merits regarding excess charges of interest u/s 234C of the Act amounting to Rs.7,46,891/- 2. Before us, learned counsel

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

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 appeal

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

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 reached

REFRESHMENT PRODUCT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Refreshment Product Vs. Acit Service India Private Circle – 19 (1) Limited, B-91, Mayapuri New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan No.Aagcr4112D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Sh. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Advocate Sh. Aditya Rathore, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

section 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing information technology related supplementary services to Coca Cola group entities in relation to designing of software, development, deployment and implementation solutions. The assessee company has filed the return of income declaring

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 140A of the Act on the returned income had remained payable at the time of filing the return. The breakup of the said the self-assessment tax payable was as under: 2. As per the return, a sum of Rs. 10,44,260/- had been shown as tax payable u/s 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bifurcation

MAVENIR INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS COMVERSE NETWORK SYSTEM INDIA PVT. LTD.),GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURGOAN

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrar Assessment Year: 2016-17

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merit. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, & in law the assessment order passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National e-Assessment Centre (‘the 3 Ld. AO’) under Section

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

234C. No such tax and interest is leviable as no income other than returned income arises in the hands of the assessee. 12. That the present appeal is being belatedly filed. The application for condonation of delay is being filed separately and is prayed to be admitted. 13. That each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice

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 140A of the Act on the returned income had remained payable at the time of filing the return. 3. As per the return, a sum of Rs.14,10,164/- had been shown as tax payable u/s 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The details of the same is as under: a. Taxes payable

PAWAI TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanpawai Trust , Vs. Dcit B-60-61 C/O Bajaj Auto Ltd. Cirlce 49(1) Naraina Industrial Area Phase Ii Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaatp0445J)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 11.10.2021 declaring Total Income at Rs. 53,60,300/-. The above return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (in short “Act”) and they proceeded to determine the taxable income and adopted maximum

MARELLI (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONAR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh.Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Marelli (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Tower 8, Candor Income Tax, Circle 16(1) Teachspace,One Reality Project Cr Building, Delhi It/Ites Sez Village Tikri Sector 48 Gurugram Haryana-122018 Pan No. Aagcm2620K (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay and extended the due date for filing or filing form no.10IC for AY 2020-21 to 30/06/2022. 4.8 As at present, the appellant has not established that the Form 10IC has been filed within the extended due date, the corresponding ground of appeal is therefore dismissed. Ground relating to levy of interest under section 234B, 234C

TIRUPATI INKS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Sh. N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tirupati Inks Ltd. Vs Dcit 1517, Devika Tower, Circle- 25 (1) 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacs2222F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shriharpal Singh Kharb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022

Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) for assessment year 2013- 14. 2. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee at the time of hearing. Even no application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. Though three notices for the date of hearing on 18/08/2021, 2/11/2021 and 06/01/2022 were sent though RPAD

ITL LABS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering that the source of the cash deposits being bank withdrawals and cash sales, was duly explained and hence no addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE can be upheld. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making the addition

TRILOK SINGH BHANDARI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 2(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

condoned u/s 249(3) of the Act 2.2 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "the appellant has no furnished any plausible explanation for such delay. The appellant's submission that it was under bonafide belief that no appeal lies against intimation under section 143(1) is not having any substance. Firstly, ignorance

TRILOK SINGH BHANDARI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 2(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

condoned u/s 249(3) of the Act 2.2 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "the appellant has no furnished any plausible explanation for such delay. The appellant's submission that it was under bonafide belief that no appeal lies against intimation under section 143(1) is not having any substance. Firstly, ignorance

SAMTA MITTAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Samta Mittal Vs. Ito 601, Royal Retreat, New Delhi Surajkund, Faridabad Pan No. Agzpm5730G (Appellant) (Respondent)

234C, 234D. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or 7 delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes, 11 please attach application seeking condonation of delay