BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

2. While preparing for this appeal the Counsel of the Appellant before the Hon’ble Tribunal advised that it was necessary to challenge the appellate order in the quantum also as determined in appeal by order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). For this purpose the ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 present appeal is being filed. There is apparently

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

2. While preparing for this appeal the Counsel of the Appellant before the Hon’ble Tribunal advised that it was necessary to challenge the appellate order in the quantum also as determined in appeal by order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). For this purpose the ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 present appeal is being filed. There is apparently

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

2. While preparing for this appeal the Counsel of the Appellant before the Hon’ble Tribunal advised that it was necessary to challenge the appellate order in the quantum also as determined in appeal by order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). For this purpose the ITA Nos.2783 & 2784/Del/2012 present appeal is being filed. There is apparently

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay. But certainly same cannot be agitated by the assessee before us in cross objection. 22. Even otherwise if the argument of the learned authorised representative is accepted it will make the provisions of section 263, 264 of the income tax act redundant if the assessment is subject matter of appeal. Clearly the provisions of section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

sections": [ "144C(5)", "40(a)(i)", "9(1)(vii)(b)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "144C", "253(2A)", "253(3A)", "253(5)", "14" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue was for a \"sufficient cause\" to warrant condonation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253(2) copy of the minutes are referred but same were not enclosed. It was further stated that as decision cited by the ld CIT DR equally applied ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 to the revenue where there is a gross negligence or inaction

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

253, subsection (3) of section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is used in identical terms in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income Tax Act such as sections 274, 273, etc. The expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act as well

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

2. The solitary grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that as no incriminating material pertaining to the A.Y under consideration has been found during the search, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to frame assessment u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short

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

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

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

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

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

section 253(3) of the Act. Sufficient 1. Mental & physical illness of Appellant cause of 2. Non-service of impugned order; delay 3. Illiteracy of Appellant 4. Bonafide intention …….. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore humbly prayed and requested: 1) Allow the present appeal on merits considering illness, unsound mind

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

section 253(3) of the Act. Sufficient 1. Mental & physical illness of Appellant cause of 2. Non-service of impugned order; delay 3. Illiteracy of Appellant 4. Bonafide intention …….. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore humbly prayed and requested: 1) Allow the present appeal on merits considering illness, unsound mind

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BELIEVE DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS 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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS 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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S. PEGASUS SOFTECH (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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S. ALANKAR SAPHIRE DEVELOPERS,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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

M/S VINMAN ESTATES (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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WITNESS BUILDERS 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

253 ITR 798 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay and it was held that “Court should adopt a pragmatic approach where delay is of few days only.” The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon several other decisions and considering nominal delay in filing the appeal before