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

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. VENUS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.

245 days. 2. Having regard to the fact that the delay is in re-filing the appeal and the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 166/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 5. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.08.2020 passed

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. TUTICORIN PORT ROAD COMPANY LTD.

245 days. 2. Having regard to the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. ITA 168/2023 4. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”] concerning Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 5. Broadly, the facts of the case show

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

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

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

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

condone the delay that had occurred in audit of some of the State units? 3. Whether, the ITAT was right in holding that the Assessee had failed to fulfil the three conditions envisaged under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 13A of the Act? Background to Section 13A 49. A central issue that arises involves the interpretation of Section

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

delay occurred in filing the present appeal is, therefore, condoned. 3. The brief facts relevant to the issue are that the appellant purchased a property at 1st Floor, E-180, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi from Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi S/o Mr. LY Vahi and Smt Pomila Vahi w/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vahi, both non-residents

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal. & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 69C can be invoked when the appellant only incurs an expenditure and such expenditure was not satisfactorily explained with regard to source of such expenditure or part thereof then the amount covered by such expenditure would be deemed to be income of the appellant. In the present case the expenditure was incurred by M/s Samsung Construction Ltd., another person

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

245-D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or (viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings [or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date

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

245-D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or (viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings [or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date