ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SNG DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

272 ITR 439 (Cal.), Sukhlal Ice & Cold Storage Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer (1993) 199 ITR 129 (All.) and Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 198 ITR 669 (All.) C.O. No. 110/Del/2012 AY: 2003-04 ii. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law and on facts

ASHISH LEGAL FOUNDATION,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purpose

Delay is condoned\nand appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the common grounds in both\nappeals:-\n1. The Learned CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred on facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law cancelling the registration\nunder section 12AB without affording adequate opportunity to the\nappellant to present the case and without considering

ASHISH LEGAL FOUNDATION,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purpose

Delay is condoned\nand appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n3. The assessee has raised the common grounds in both\nappeals:-\n1. The Learned CIT (Exemption) has grossly erred on facts and in\nthe circumstances of the case and in law cancelling the registration\nunder section 12AB without affording adequate opportunity to the\nappellant to present the case and without considering

GEETA BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Geeta Bhasin, Vs Acit, C/O-Mr. Sandeep Sapra, Adv., Circle-28(1), C0763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi-110025. Pan-Acdpb6005D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Sapra, Adv. Respondent By Shri M.Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2022

272 days and an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. Further, the assessee relies on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil No.3 of 2020) dated 08.03.2021 and Miscellaneous Application 665 of 2021 dated 19.07.2021. 4. Ld.CIT DR opposed these submissions and submitted that there is no reasonable cause

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 vs. M/S NEW DELHI TYRE HOUSE

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:27.10.2023 17:41:06 Signature Not Verified ITA 555/2023 Page 2 of 6 ITA 555/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 vs. M/S NEW DELHI TYRE HOUSE

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the prayer made in the application is allowed. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date:27.10.2023 17:41:06 Signature Not Verified ITA 555/2023 Page 2 of 6 ITA 555/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTNL T vs. ERICSSON RADIO SYSTEMS A.B.

The appeal is allowed in the

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is also of no assistance, because even if a company is a person, and winding up results in its death, as explained earlier, there is a FAO(OS) 511/2007, C.M. APPL. 14878/2008 & 3645/2012 Page 25 radical difference between an amalgamation and a final winding up order, after all affairs

RAJAN AHUJA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 45(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Rajan Ahuja, Vs Ito, A-2/79, Ground Floor, Ward-45(2), Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110027. Delhi. Pan-Bxxpa0933M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Akarsh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.12.2023

272 and did not pass the appropriate order dealing with the issues put forth pursuant to the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act. E. BECAUSE in the case of the Appellant, there is no final order passed by the CIT(A) dealing with the grounds raised by the Appellant qua the appellate proceedings which sine

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S CARAF BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

condonation of 36 days delay in re- filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has appeared on advance notice and does not oppose the application. The application is accordingly allowed. ITA 1260/2018 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) in the case of M/s. Caraf Builders

M/S. VEETEE FINE FOODS LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO (TDS), ROHTAK

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4941/Del/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) M/S. Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., Vs Ito(Tds) 56-57 Km Mile Stone, Rohtak. G. T. Karnal Road, Larsauli, Sonepat -131 001 (Pan : Aaacp 0658 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Saroj Agarwal, C.A. Ms. Sonia Rani, C.A. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R.

delay of 730 days is condoned. Now we are taking up the appeal for hearing and final disposal. 3 7. On merit the Ld. AR submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. DHTC Logistic Limited (2014) 41 taxman.com 439 (Delhi) wherein it is held that CBDT had clarified that

ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. JAY DEE SECURITIES & FINANCE LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.D. Aggarwal & Shri Amit Shukla

delay should be condoned and appeal of the assessee should be heard on merits. 5. Since in the assessee’s appeal for the impugned assessment years, a fundamental issue of jurisdiction has been raised, therefore, we are first taking up assessee’s appeal first for adjudication. The main ground which has been raised in all the appeals which goes

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condoned in respect of the bank, then the matter even in so far as the appellant is concerned would be over. 19. He further submitted that the order dated 03.03.2011 whereby the respondent No. 3 revoked the passport of the appellant was bad for another reason. The reason being that the said order dated 03.03.2011 refers to diversion of Foreign

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. RITES LTD., GURGAON

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 49 days in filing the present cross objection is hereby condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an 4 ITA No.6447/Del./2017 ITA No.6448/Del./2017 CO No.78/Del.2019 amount of Rs.1,15,21,250/- & Rs.13,21,75,000/- by invoking the provisions contained

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. RITES LTD., GURGAON

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 49 days in filing the present cross objection is hereby condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an 4 ITA No.6447/Del./2017 ITA No.6448/Del./2017 CO No.78/Del.2019 amount of Rs.1,15,21,250/- & Rs.13,21,75,000/- by invoking the provisions contained

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITA 193/2024 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), impugning an order dated Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:17.12.2024 16:17:45 Signature Not Verified ITA 193/2024 Page 2 of 13 09.01.2019 (hereafter

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. INFO ELDGE INDIA LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application is disposed of. ITA No. 310 of 2016 3. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31st July 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1896/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2007-08. 4. The ITAT has in the impugned order

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

272 days. In this regard, Ld. AR has reiterated the contentions raised in the application dated 18.01.2025 relating to condonation of delay by submitting that delay so occurred in filing the appeal is prayed to be condoned since the assessee was under advised by Sh. Sachin Goyal, local counsel, not to prefer appeal against the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon

GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,BHIWANI vs. JCIT, TDS RANGE, KARNAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272(2)(k) of the Act. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO by observing as under:- Decision:- “5. I have given careful consideration to the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. The appellant has placed reliance on the case laws cited in the written submissions. The explanation tendered