DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

263 of the Act. The Tribunal followed its first order dated 06.05.2009 and allowed the appeals of the assessee. In the first order, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12A and section 80G of the Act and that the delay in making the application for such registration was condoned

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

263 of the Act. The Tribunal followed its first order dated 06.05.2009 and allowed the appeals of the assessee. In the first order, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12A and section 80G of the Act and that the delay in making the application for such registration was condoned

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

263 of the Act. The Tribunal followed its first order dated 06.05.2009 and allowed the appeals of the assessee. In the first order, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to registration under section 12A and section 80G of the Act and that the delay in making the application for such registration was condoned

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), DELHI-2 JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI, DELHI

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as\n'the Act') arising out of the Assessment Orders dated 03.08.2021 &\nPage 2\n18.04.2022 passed by the ACIT, Central Circle 20, Delhi under Section\n143(3) of the Act, for Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 respectively.\n2. Both the appeals are found to be barred by limitation

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

263 on 19.02.2012. In our considered view the assessee has explained the delay. 5.1. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katija & others (supra) has held as follows: “1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

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 or] Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

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

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 or] Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

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

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 or] Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

NKC PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT DELHI-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Delay condoned. This special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary to the law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income

SURYA ROSHNI LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Delay condoned.\nThis special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary\nto the law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. 13. Briefly the facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. 13. Briefly the facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. 13. Briefly the facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay, I dismiss the appeals without admitting them. 11. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No.2783/Del/2012 for AY: 1993-94 ITA No. 2784/Del/2012 for AY:1994-95 12. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. 13. Briefly the facts are, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee did not file

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Delay condoned. This special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary to the law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income

LIBERTY SHOES LTD,LIBERTY PURAM G.T.KARNAL ROAD KUTAIL DISTT KARNAL vs. PCIT ROHTAK HARYANA, DCIT KARNAL HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Delay condoned.\nThis special leave petition is misconceived and is completely contrary to\nthe law pertaining to Section 263 of the Income

ELLORA INRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in presenting appeal before ITAT stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee made extensive submissions and assailed the revisional action of the Pr.CIT assertively. The ld. Counsel made wide ranging submissions on facts and law and cited judicial precedents to support its case. We shall deal with these arguments