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

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

253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days

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

253 of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within sixty days of order dated 10.1.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and as such the appeal was due to be filed by 11.3.2025 whereas the appeal has been filed on 03.06.2025 leading to a delay of 64 days

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

253 ITR 798) the Apex Court clearly laid down that the distinction must be made between a case where delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. 6. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee's case

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

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

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

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

VSR INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VASANT VIHAR DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

c) of the Act on the additions made in the assessment order. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in imposing interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act on the above additions made in the assessment order. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or omit

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

c) in any other case, after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.” 4.6 There is no ambiguity

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

c) in any other case, after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.” 4.6 There is no ambiguity

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

c) in any other case, after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.” 4.6 There is no ambiguity

ASHISH SHUKLA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in terms of Section 253(5) of the Act and proceed to dispose of respective appeals on merits. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee made three pronged attack on the respective penalty orders in question. Firstly, the orders in question have been admittedly uploaded unsigned by the Assessing Officer

ASHISH SHUKLA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in terms of Section 253(5) of the Act and proceed to dispose of respective appeals on merits. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee made three pronged attack on the respective penalty orders in question. Firstly, the orders in question have been admittedly uploaded unsigned by the Assessing Officer

ASHISH SHUKLA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in terms of Section 253(5) of the Act and proceed to dispose of respective appeals on merits. 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee made three pronged attack on the respective penalty orders in question. Firstly, the orders in question have been admittedly uploaded unsigned by the Assessing Officer

ASHIAN NEEDLES PVT LTD

C 635, wherein it has been observed as under (page 384): To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do so, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined. Law prohibits to do something indirectly which is prohibited to be done

HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3651 /Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 HCIL Comtel Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of 1, Shivji Marg Western Greens Income Tax, Circle -11(1) N.H.-08, Gurgaon Road Vs. New Delhi South West Delhi PAN: AACCH0293H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Tavish Verma

CONPLEX TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

6. The Registry noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is late by 121 days. The assessee filed an application dated 14.03.2018 for condonation of the said delay in filing appeal. It is stated therein that the assessee was unaware that appeal has not been filed before the Tribunal and came to know about it after notice under section

KARAMBIR,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), GURUGRAM

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

C’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 186/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2017-18) Karambir, ITO, VPO Manesar, NH-8, Delhi- Vs. Ward 2(3), Jaipur Highway, Near Old Post Gurugram. Office, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122050. PAN No: BTAPK8568D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Kr. Mishra