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

250 (Bom.). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court very categorically held that wrong professional advice given by CA, which is supported by Affidavit of concerned CA, comes under the reasonable cause for condonation of delay and when the Revenue authorities was not contested said claim, Tribunal was not justified in refusing to condone delay in filing of the appeals

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

250 (Bom.). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court very categorically held that wrong professional advice given by CA, which is supported by Affidavit of concerned CA, comes under the reasonable cause for condonation of delay and when the Revenue authorities was not contested said claim, Tribunal was not justified in refusing to condone delay in filing of the appeals

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed with a delay of2529 days and the Ld. CIT(A) found that the reason given for the said delay was not satisfactory. It is seen from the body of the impugned order that the assessee had mentioned that they

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed with a delay of2529 days and the Ld. CIT(A) found that the reason given for the said delay was not satisfactory. It is seen from the body of the impugned order that the assessee had mentioned that they

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed with a delay of2529 days and the Ld. CIT(A) found that the reason given for the said delay was not satisfactory. It is seen from the body of the impugned order that the assessee had mentioned that they

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed with a delay of2529 days and the Ld. CIT(A) found that the reason given for the said delay was not satisfactory. It is seen from the body of the impugned order that the assessee had mentioned that they

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In this case the first appeal was filed with a delay of2529 days and the Ld. CIT(A) found that the reason given for the said delay was not satisfactory. It is seen from the body of the impugned order that the assessee had mentioned that they

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

condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 2.2That conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi that "accordingly, appellant's all grounds of appeal are dismissed as not maintainable and thereby appellant two appeals

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

condonation of delay in filing of these two appeals" is not based on correct appreciation of facts on record and therefore unsustainable. 2.2That conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi that "accordingly, appellant's all grounds of appeal are dismissed as not maintainable and thereby appellant two appeals

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter 1 East and Apartment CGHS Ltd. referred to as “the Act”] dated 27.06.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein the appeal was dismissed in limine and delay of 159 days in filing the appeal was not condoned

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

250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner

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

250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner

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

250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ASHUTOSH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was late by 20 days. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) in the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal that the Orders were suddenly passed in the last week of February 2013 and assessee was under pressure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. LKG BUILDERS P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was late by 20 days. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) in the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal that the Orders were suddenly passed in the last week of February 2013 and assessee was under pressure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KING BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was late by 20 days. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) in the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal that the Orders were suddenly passed in the last week of February 2013 and assessee was under pressure

M/S KING BUILDCON (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was late by 20 days. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) in the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal that the Orders were suddenly passed in the last week of February 2013 and assessee was under pressure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee was late by 20 days. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) in the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal that the Orders were suddenly passed in the last week of February 2013 and assessee was under pressure