THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

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

Section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond control of party invoking aid of provisions. In the case of T. Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383, Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad has held that in granting indulgence and condonation delay in filing appeal, it must be proved beyond shadow of doubt that assessee was diligent and was not guilty

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

260 nos. of days in filing the appeal. 2. That the delay has caused bonafidely for a reasonable cause as explained in following Para's. 2 Vijay Kundu 3. That the matter U/s. 263 was handled by the then counsel Adv. Rakesh Bobal. On receipt of the order U/s. 263, assessee handed over the same to Adv. Rakesh Bobal

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

260, Sec.262, Sec. 263, Sec. 264, Sec. 245D(4) effectively directed to re- compute the refund determined u/s 143(1) or Sec. 143(3) and to pre-determine the quantum of the refund of the amount due afresh. Thus after receipt of the order under these sections, the tax payable/refund payable would be re-computed as provided u/s 244A

HAR PRASHAD BHUTANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

260/- by making an addition of Rs.47 lakhs under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3.1. Since there was a delay in filing of the appeal by more than 04 months and despite issue of notice from the O/o. Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal as per the facts stated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO same Group, and who upon a study of this case file informed the assessee of the situation. 3.4 On the issue of condonation of delay, the Ld. A.R. referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mast. Katiji and Ors., MANU/SC/0460/1987

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUR BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

260 &261/Del/2015 Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. ITO same Group, and who upon a study of this case file informed the assessee of the situation. 3.4 On the issue of condonation of delay, the Ld. A.R. referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mast. Katiji and Ors., MANU/SC/0460/1987

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

FISERV INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishifiserv India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Regus Elegance, Level-2, Jasola Circle-9(1), District Centre, Old Mathura New Delhi Road, Delhi Pan: Aaccr0787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and proceed to decide the issue is on merits. 9. Adverting to ground number [1] of the appeal wherein the learned authorised representative has submitted that on a debatable issue there is no scope for passing rectification order u/s 154 of the act. He submitted that the issue of the reduction of MAT credit

M/S PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

section 156 of the Act on assessee on 21.11.2006, despite the fact that, it had not been disputed that no Notice of demand had been served on assessee in Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT respect of the said order of assessment and time to file an appeal commences with the service of notice of demand and no valid appeal could

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 140A of the Act on the returned income had remained payable at the time of filing the return. The breakup of the said the self-assessment tax payable was as under: 2. As per the return, a sum of Rs. 10,44,260/- had been shown as tax payable u/s 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bifurcation

AGNITY TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat To Exclude Bodhtree Consulting Ltd. From The List Of Comparables.' According To The Appellant, The Itat Had In Other Cases Consistently Has Been Taking A View That The Said Comparable Should Be Excluded. 2. In Support Of The Plea That The Period During Which The Appellant Was Pursuing The Alternate Remedy Should Be Excluded In Terms Of Section 14 Of The Limitation Act 1963 (La), Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Relied On The Decision Of The Supreme Court In M.P. Steel

Section 260 A of the Act in time. ITA 939/2016 Page 3 of 3 5. No satisfactory reason has been provided by the Appellant for the extraordinary delay of 439 days in the filing the appeal. 6. The application for condonation