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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.” 5. It is farther submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.” 5. It is farther submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.” 5. It is farther submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.” 5. It is farther submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.” 5. It is farther submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technalities.” 5. It is farther submitted that there cannot be any presumption drawn against the approving authority with regard to application of mind merely on the ground that number

MOVEFAST AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 23 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following concise grounds of appeal:- ““1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 85,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GD GOENKA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/S. G.D. Goenka Pvt. Ltd., N- Acit, Circle-10(2), New Delhi 85, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaacg0865A (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 79/Del/2016 (In Ita No. 6553/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2009-10

condone the delay in filing the cross objection. 3.3 Facts in brief of the case as culled out from the orders of the lower authorities are that the assessee is engaged in providing education by running an educational institute in the name and style of ‘GD Goenka World Institute’, by offering courses of study of foreign university to the students

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

NELUMBO PAINTS PVT. LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), HARYANA

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 19 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 93,00,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium

MANHAR YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 23 days of filing the present appeal is condoned. 2. The assessee has raised the following Concise grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 96300,000 us 68 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained share premium and share