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

b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras

B.B. NIGADE AND SONS AND UMA CONSTRUCTIONS JV,KOLHAPUR vs. TDS GHAZIABAD, TDS CPC GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4435/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम B.B.Nigade & Sons & Uma Tds, Cpc Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions Jv, Vs. Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, H.No.157A Nirmitee Bungalow, U.P. Plot No.64, Vaibhav Housing Soc., Ujalaiwadi, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aabfb4721A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249(3) of the Act. 3. The Ld. DR assisted us in going through the impugned order and the order of the Ld. AO as also the various documents filed by the assessee. The Ld. DR pointed out that delay cannot be condoned in each and every case and the reasons given by the assessee for his delay are generic

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

b) of the Act and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are contrary to section 151A of the Act; and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction was not in accordance with law. 4That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 3,60,51,890/- representing

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

b) of the Act and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act are contrary to section 151A of the Act; and therefore the assumption of jurisdiction was not in accordance with law. 4That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs. 3,60,51,890/- representing

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

RAJPAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD -2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Condonation of delay is not a matter of right since appellant has failed to show reasons of delay on last day of limitation and thereafter for each day, it is felt that appellant has not acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting I.T.A No.392/Del/2023 3 the appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on decision in the case of Rankak

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

b) was rejected by CIT(E) -Whether since assessee had been filing its returns and Form 10B for subsequent years within due dates on this ground alone, delay condonation application should have been allowed because failure to file returns for AY 2016-17 could be only due to human error lacking any mala fide intention - Held, yes - Whether in instant

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

b) was rejected by CIT(E) -Whether since assessee had been filing its returns and Form 10B for subsequent years within due dates on this ground alone, delay condonation application should have been allowed because failure to file returns for AY 2016-17 could be only due to human error lacking any mala fide intention - Held, yes - Whether in instant

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)

condonation of delay by CIT(E) is only an additional remedy. (Pages 1-3 of case law compilation) Filing of Audit Report u/s 10B was directory and not mandatory Submissions and case law regarding these grounds (Pages 66-71 of PB) Audit Report was given in Return Form (Pages 31-33 of PB) Application for additional evidence (Pages

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

249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, the Intimation order was issued on 26.02.2024, and appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is to be filed on or before 27.03.2024 However same was not filed within the time prescribed. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING APPEAL Appeal to be filed within Applicable due date 30 days from date

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

249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, the Intimation order was issued on 26.02.2024, and appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is to be filed on or before 27.03.2024 However same was not filed within the time prescribed. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING APPEAL Appeal to be filed within Applicable due date 30 days from date

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

b), Section 139 (4) and Section 139 (5) of the Act. As already noted the return originally filed was found to be defective. A notice was issued under Section 139 (9) of the Act asking the Assessee to rectify the defects. Section 139 (9) itself states that if the defects are not rectified within the time allowed, then notwithstanding anything

EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grievously erred in law and on facts, confirming the order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 and 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

SATVINDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2014-15

B. S. Anant, Sr. DR Date of hearing 11.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 20.05.2022 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal is preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 against order dated 15/05/2017 passed under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), 37, New Delhi