PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

SH. JAGDEEP SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

269 (SC) where it has been held that in all cases where there is delay on the part of the Department, the Hon’ble High Court ought to consider imposing cost. But, certainly, the High Court should examine the cases on the merits and should not dispose of the cases merely on the ground of delay, particularly when huge stakes

M/S. BANSI LAL AND SONS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2009-10

section 145 (3) of the Act and rejecting the books of accounts maintained in the normal course of business and duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act; 2. in making addition of Rs.64,26,409/-on account of alleged discrepancies in the creditors account even though books of accounts had been rejected; ITA No. 01/Del/2015 AY-2009-10 Bansi

RAGHUBIR SINGH PUNIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2252/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13

269 ITR 19 (SC). 6. That under the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as much as in fact in upholding the addition of Rs.29,49,000/- u/s 69A of Act, by treating the amount of cash deposited in the bank account as unexplained. Such addition is bad in law and section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI vs. OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

OPAL BUILDWELL P.LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal in ITA No. 2829/Del/2019. 9. The sum and substance of the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) has committed error in holding that the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law for AY 2009-10 in view

WAPMERR CONSULTANCY & FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chella Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay is condoned. 6. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 have not been pressed. The same are dismissed as not pressed. 7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the confirmation of disallowance of 50% of the expenses of Business Promotion. 8. Brief facts relating to this issue are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company had claimed business promotion expenses

SWATY MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

SONIA MEHTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by both these assessees is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. Coming to merits, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.3 of grounds of appeal in the case of Sonia Mehta and ground no.4 in the case of Swati Mehta stated that in these

MS. TRIPTA BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 269 SS without assigning any reasons. 5. That in the alternative, the addition made is highly excessive.” 2. However before addressing the issues agitated by the assessee in the present appeal, it is necessary to first address the delay of 90 days sought to be explained by the assessee on the basis of the submissions recorded in the affidavit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

269/- earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 20. Undisputedly, in the year under assessment i.e. 2004-05, Rule 8D was not applicable and the disallowances, if any, to be made being the expenditure

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

269/- earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 20. Undisputedly, in the year under assessment i.e. 2004-05, Rule 8D was not applicable and the disallowances, if any, to be made being the expenditure

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

269/- earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 20. Undisputedly, in the year under assessment i.e. 2004-05, Rule 8D was not applicable and the disallowances, if any, to be made being the expenditure

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

269/- earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 20. Undisputedly, in the year under assessment i.e. 2004-05, Rule 8D was not applicable and the disallowances, if any, to be made being the expenditure

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

269/- earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 20. Undisputedly, in the year under assessment i.e. 2004-05, Rule 8D was not applicable and the disallowances, if any, to be made being the expenditure

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

269/- earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 20. Undisputedly, in the year under assessment i.e. 2004-05, Rule 8D was not applicable and the disallowances, if any, to be made being the expenditure

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

269/- earned by the assessee company during the year under assessment being the reasonable expenditure incurred to earn dividend income by the assessee company. Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 20. Undisputedly, in the year under assessment i.e. 2004-05, Rule 8D was not applicable and the disallowances, if any, to be made being the expenditure

ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. PRAMADITYA, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs Pramaditya, Cc-14, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E Co No.29/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramaditya, Vs. Acit, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, Cc-14, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E

269 (Del HC). Moreover, we find that the CBDT vide its Circular No. 2/2018 dated 15.02.2018 had also clarified that the said amendment in section 153C of the Act would apply only in respect of searches conducted u/s 132 of the Act or requisitions made u/s 132A of the Act on or after 01.04.2017. 3.2. We find that this issue