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

3 months (1537 days) due to the same reasons which has been\ncondoned by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14.03.2024 Copy of the\norder has been attached as Annexure-2 for your kind reference.\n2.0 In respect of condonation of delay, reliance is placed on the order\nof Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case

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

3 months (1537 days) due to the same reasons which has been\ncondoned by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14.03.2024 Copy of the\norder has been attached as Annexure-2 for your kind reference.\n2.0 In respect of condonation of delay, reliance is placed on the order\nof Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case

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 under section 249(3) in presenting the appeal for assessment year 2008-09. That the effect order under section 254

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

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (NOW MERGED WITH PNB),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1903/Del/2021, A.Y. 2008-09

condonation of delay under section 249(3) in presenting the appeal for assessment year 2008-09. That the effect order under section 254

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

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

3 of part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Act since 30.08.1984. A simple prima-facie mistake Act. The assessee filed petitions, under section 119(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

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

3 of part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Act since 30.08.1984. A simple prima-facie mistake Act. The assessee filed petitions, under section 119(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

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

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

3 Ten Smiles Foundation 4.1 Further, it was specifically admitted at the bar that the assessee had never received any communication, through email/post from the Ld. CIT(E), for providing an opportunity of being heard. Hence, there was non- compliance and the Ld. CIT(E) decided the issue of granting approval under section 80G of the Act without hearing

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

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

3) dated 30.03.2015 of Rs.13,53,460/- by making an addition of Rs.46,01,770/-. This addition is an account of treatment given to the amount received by the appellant during the year from M/s. Anupam Chempharma Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Yashita Finance Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.15,73,770/- and Rs.30,28,000/-, which was treated by the Assessing Officer

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. GREEN MARK INFRA LTD.

3. According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of 100 days. 4. For the reasons given in the applications, the delay in re-filling the Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:14.03.2023 12:03:38 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2023/DHC/001806 ITA Nos.78/2023 & 79/2023 Page 2 of 5 appeals is condoned. 5. The applications are disposed

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

3 Gulshan Basti is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known dictum "VIGILATIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. Considering the facts and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble, ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case

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