DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

244A, the provisions of the fourth proviso shall apply accordingly.] Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then, an assessment of such income for Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

244A, the provisions of the fourth proviso shall apply accordingly.] Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then, an assessment of such income for Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

244A, the provisions of the fourth proviso shall apply accordingly.] Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then, an assessment of such income for Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI vs. HCL INFOTECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

condoned. 3. The application is allowed. CM APPL. 3574/2026 (Exemption) 4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 5. The application stands disposed of. ITA 26/2026 6. The present appeal arises out of the order dated 15.09.2023, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “B”, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟), whereby the Tribunal has rejected

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (FORMELY) NOW PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,DELHI vs. ACIT LTU-1 KOLKATA (UNDER TRANSFER TO CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

3)/148/254 of the Act on 28.01.2017 and interest u/s 244A calculated at Rs. 593,62,608/-. 4. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. 2 5. The Ld. CIT(A) raised the issue of condonation of delay by observing as under:- “Before proceeding ahead with the merits of the Appeal, it is important

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

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

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (NOW MERGED WITH PNB),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1903/Del/2021, A.Y. 2008-09

3 interest u/s 244A of the Act, again filed an appeal before the Appellate forum on 1/2/2019.” 6. Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that there is delay of 644 days as the appeal was instituted on 01.02.2019 against the assessment order dated 29.03.2017. The assessee claimed that the copy of order was received by the banking section

NALWA SONS INVESTMENTS LTD.,,HISAR vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A Pillai, Jm

condoned the delay. 2.5 The Ld. CIT(A) held as under: “It is undisputed that MAT was paid by appellant as claimed it is well settled position of law that credit of MAT is to be allowed as prepaid taxes as decided by orderable apex court in C I T VS. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. reported

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

delay of 1726 days in filing the cross objection is condoned. CO No.118/Del/2024 6. During the hearing before us, the assessee reiterated the above fact of inadvertently offering the above capital gains and submitted that the AO is obligated to assess the correct income relying upon Board Circular No.14 XL-35, dated 11.04.1955. It was further submitted that tax collection

CARITAS INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing income and expenditure account along with Form 10AA before the prescribed authority viz. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions). 2. Without prejudice, that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not reducing the addition made in the assessment order by an amount of Rs.10,97,87,750, since the amount

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income