MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SNG DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same. C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 5. First, we take up the cross objection raised by the assessee challenging the omission by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in not deciding the issue of two notices issued simultaneously under section 148 of the Act . 5.1 At the outset

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

delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. Referring to ground no.1 of grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings in as much as the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reasons

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)

delay made in the filing of the application between the date of the accident and the date of the constitution of the Tribunal is not correct. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section l10A of the Act are meant to condone the default of the party on the ground of sufficient

JAGDISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), JHANDEWALAN

condone the delay in\nfiling the appeal before us.\n3. Brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee filed its\nreturn of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30.07.2012 declaring\ntotal income at Rs.195,80,710/- which was processed under Section\n143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was\nreopened

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORP. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

236 ITR 315 (SC) 4) The Ld. CIT, Delhi -IV issued notice u/s 263 on the basis of suggestion made by the audit party which cannot be the basis as was held in the case of jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.). 5) The assessee prays for deletion of the Order of Ld. CIT, Delhi

DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

236 ITR 315 (SC) 4) The Ld. CIT, Delhi -IV issued notice u/s 263 on the basis of suggestion made by the audit party which cannot be the basis as was held in the case of jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.). 5) The assessee prays for deletion of the Order of Ld. CIT, Delhi

DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1) vs. DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

236 ITR 315 (SC) 4) The Ld. CIT, Delhi -IV issued notice u/s 263 on the basis of suggestion made by the audit party which cannot be the basis as was held in the case of jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.). 5) The assessee prays for deletion of the Order of Ld. CIT, Delhi

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. NAVEEN INFRADEVELOPERS & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.

delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Signature Not Verified ITA 524/2024 Page 2 of 5 4. The application stands disposed of. ITA 524/2024 5. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) impugning an order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Income

SH. RAMESH YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-3(5), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Ramesh Yadav, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 236, Sector-6, Manesar Imt, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon Pan No. Acbpy6351M Pin: 122016 (Appellant) (Respondent)

236, Sector-6, Manesar IMT, Ward-3(5), Gurgaon, Haryana Gurgaon PAN No. ACBPY6351M PIN: 122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Saksham Agarwal, CA Department by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 22.01.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The application for condonation of delay

RAHUL RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, GHAZIABAD

condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for hearing.\n\n3. The assessee in the appeal in his hand has not only challenged the\nimpugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 17.03.2022 but has also challenged the\nreopening proceedings itself on the assertion that there was no valid reason to\nbelieve and there was invalid sanction

ESM GROUP INC,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(2)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra[A.Y 2008-09] M/S Esm Group Inc. Vs. The Dy.C.I.T Suite 118 N, 300, Corporate Park Circle -1(2)(2) Way Amherst, New York International Taxation New Delhi Pan: Aacce 4072 H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Sudhir Kumar Dash, Ca Department By :Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025

section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LD, AO has erred in holding that the Appellant has a Permanent Establishment ("PE") in the form and DAPE inM/s. Rajalakshmi International Corporation (Proprietor Anand Mathur) 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

ZETA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 on 08.01.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 98,48,230/- and claimed Refund of Rs. 80,80,460/-. Subsequently, the Return of Income was processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,UTTARKASHI vs. ITO, TDS, HARIDWAR

In the result these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

236/- 3,53,069/- 3 2015-16 2,86,190/- 26,740/- 3,11,930/- 2.1. These orders U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act were passed by the AO after examination of the records of the Office of the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi (The Assessee) during which AO observed that no quarterly statement

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,UTTARKASHI vs. ITO, TDS, HARIDWAR

In the result these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

236/- 3,53,069/- 3 2015-16 2,86,190/- 26,740/- 3,11,930/- 2.1. These orders U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act were passed by the AO after examination of the records of the Office of the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi (The Assessee) during which AO observed that no quarterly statement

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,UTTARKASHI vs. ITO, TDS, HARIDWAR

In the result these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

236/- 3,53,069/- 3 2015-16 2,86,190/- 26,740/- 3,11,930/- 2.1. These orders U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of IT Act were passed by the AO after examination of the records of the Office of the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi (The Assessee) during which AO observed that no quarterly statement

SATYA DEV YADAV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 3, REWARI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2011-12

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’ erred in rejecting that addition u/s 147 can be made when nothing new has come