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

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]

condonation of delay. 3 5. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it can be observed that the assessee is a public sector bank. The present issue has a chequered history as reflected in para no. 2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) as follows :- “2. Brief Facts of the Case Briefly the facts of the case

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

section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it 6 Mithlesh Kumar Tripathi thinks fit. We are of the considered view that there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing this appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing this appeal deserves to be condoned and this appeal be decided on merit

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

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

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

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

2) of the Act, before the Ld. PCIT to allow the assessee to revise ITRs. However, the same vide orders dated 23.07.2024 [DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066910706(1) and ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066910326(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

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

2) of the Act, before the Ld. PCIT to allow the assessee to revise ITRs. However, the same vide orders dated 23.07.2024 [DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066910706(1) and ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1066910326(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

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

delay of 1726 days in filing the cross objection is condoned. CO No.118/Del/2024 6. During the hearing before us, the assessee reiterated the above fact of inadvertently offering the above capital gains and submitted that the AO is obligated to assess the correct income relying upon Board Circular No.14 XL-35, dated 11.04.1955. It was further submitted that tax collection

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

254 of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing this appeal as we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not presenting this appeal within the prescribed time. 6 Gulshan Basti 8. The Ld. AR of the assessee prayed for remanding the matter to the AO as none the Authorities below had decided the case on merit

NARESH KUMAR VERMA

condonation of delay. The appeal and the said application will be considered and decided on merits. The petitioner in the present writ petition has impugned the order dated 14th December, 2012 passed by the tribunal on application under Section 254(2

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

section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit. We are of the considered view that there is no malafide or deliberate delay in filing this appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing this appeal deserves condonation so that this appeal is decided on merit

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

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)’].

section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit. We are of the considered view that there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing this appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing this appeal deserves to be condoned and this appeal be decided on merit

FORTIS HOSPITALS LTD

Bench: The Learned

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 2. The appellant claims that the certified copy of the Impugned Order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate 2021:DHC:2240-DB ITA 132/2021 Page 2 of 12 Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned ITAT’) was received by it on 27.09.2019. The appellant thereafter, filed an application under

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

section 254 of the Act, the Tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit. We are of the considered view that there was no malafide or deliberate delay in filing this appeal. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay in filing this appeal deserves to be condoned and this appeal be decided on merit