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

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 alleged unexplained money and brought

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

D E R These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-28, New Delhi for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. These two appeals are filed with the delay of 1944 and 1596 days respectively. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit of the Director of the assessee

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

D E R These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld.CIT(A)-28, New Delhi for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. These two appeals are filed with the delay of 1944 and 1596 days respectively. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit of the Director of the assessee

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

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

d) Satish S. Prabhu [2020] 114 taxmann.com 88 (Mumbai-Trib.) 6. The Ld. DR defended impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of both appeals. 7. We have heard both parties and perused the material available on records. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeals by 68 days

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

d) Satish S. Prabhu [2020] 114 taxmann.com 88 (Mumbai-Trib.) 6. The Ld. DR defended impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of both appeals. 7. We have heard both parties and perused the material available on records. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeals by 68 days

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M: This appeal, preferred by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16, is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi dated 02.08.2019 in appeal No. 3/10017/18-19 against the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the ITO, Ward-7(3), New Delhi u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

D 2003-04 1,97,400/- 20.6% 40,664/- 40,664/- 2004-05 9,85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

D 2003-04 1,97,400/- 20.6% 40,664/- 40,664/- 2004-05 9,85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

D 2003-04 1,97,400/- 20.6% 40,664/- 40,664/- 2004-05 9,85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed

SANJEEV MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (PAN: AAAPM5622L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. REVENUE BY : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against

NEELKANTH INFERTILITY AND IVF HOSPITAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

BMK BUSINESS HOTELS & RESORTS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

KAILASH HOSPITAL & METERNITY ,UTTARPRADESH vs. WARD 1(1)(3), UTTARPARDESH

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

FLOURTECH ENGINEERS P LTD,FARIDABAD vs. CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

FAARIHA TYAGI ,HARYANA vs. WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

NARANG SCIENTIFIC WORKS,C-255 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

MOHAN SERVICES,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

MOHAMMED MUJEEB,DELHI vs. WARD-69(4), DELHI

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee