RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication through a single order. 2. The appeal for AY 2018-19 (ITA No.4402) arises from order dated 16.07.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. Addl./JCIT (Appeal)-1, Mumbai. The appeal for AY 2019-20 arises from order dated 22.11.2024, passed

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

delay condone by the ld. CIT(A) is\nfound to be just and proper so as not to warrant interference. Thus this\nground of appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit\nand hence dismissed.\n15. The Revenue has further raised grounds in regard to the decision\nmade by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

254 days, because the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay. I am further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors, dated 08/07/2010, where it has held in para 6 that "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular

HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 18. This Court is also in agreement with the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the scope of Sections 254(2) and 260A of the Act are entirely different and it cannot be said in law that they are parallel or mutually exclusive proceedings, i.e., if a party invokes Section

VINOD KUMAR KHATRI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after allowing an opportunity to the Appellant. Thereafter, the CIT (A) passed an order dated 30th January 2004 sustaining some of the additions made by the AO. 13. The Assessee also filed an application before the CIT (A) under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the order dated 30th

DEEPAK CHHABRA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

254 of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. 7. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (‘Sr. DR’). With the help of facts mentioned in orders

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (FORMELY) NOW PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,DELHI vs. ACIT LTU-1 KOLKATA (UNDER TRANSFER TO CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

1, this Appeal was instituted on 01.02.2019 against the order dated 28.11.2017 by the AO for the assessment year 2009- 10. Thus there is a delay of 704 days in filing this appeal. However, the Appellant has claimed in Form 35 that the order was received by the Banking section on 1/12/2017 and so there is a delay of only

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

1)] were rejected on the reasoning that the CBDT vide Circular No. 09/2015 prohibits condonation of delay in filing ITR in refunds cases after 6 years. Here, the records show that the subordinate authorities of the PCIT have recommended for condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after

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

1)] were rejected on the reasoning that the CBDT vide Circular No. 09/2015 prohibits condonation of delay in filing ITR in refunds cases after 6 years. Here, the records show that the subordinate authorities of the PCIT have recommended for condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after

GULSHAN KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-1(3), GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1 to 4 are hereby dismissed. Therefore, required no separate adjudication. 8. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) prayed for condonation of delay of 379 days in filing this appeal. He submitted that the earlier Ld. Counsel looking after the tax matter of the assessee got critically ill, hence

TEN SMILES FOUNDATION,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1 Ten Smiles Foundation “5. In view of the above discussions, the present application of the assessee filed in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act is disposed of as being deficient in factual evidences in the absence of the requisite submissions and appearances of the assessee at the scheduled hearings. This

BHAWNA PAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(7), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1) of the Act was got served to the assessee through the e-mail. But the same was not complied with. The assessee did not file any ITR. During the course of assessment proceedings, statement of bank account of the assessee was obtained under section 133(6) of the Act as under: Name of Bank & Cash deposit during Total cash

NTPC BHEL POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-18(2), DELHI

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

condone the delay of 852 days in filing the appeal and admitted for adjudication. 6.The brief facts of the case are that assessee is EPC Contractor engaged to have certain preliminary site enabling assets for 6 facilitating project construction of 500MW unit Power Plant at site. The assessee has filed its return of income on 30-09-2015 declaring loss

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

condonation of delay of three years, three months and eleven days, on the ground that the impugned disallowance was beyond the scope of assessment under section 153A, since the same was not based on any incriminating material/ document found during the course of search. It was argued that the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment made under section

FORTIS HOSPITALS LTD

Bench: The Learned

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. ITA 132 of 2021 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) challenging the Order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned ITAT, Bench ‘B’, New Delhi, in I.T.A. No. 2910/DEL/2017, titled ACIT, Circle

MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-24(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the AO is without basis. There was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate 2 Mithlesh Kumar Tripathi particulars by the appellant, and thus, the penalty proceedings should be dropped. 7. Erroneous Levy of Interest: That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B