PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. THAPER HOMES PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed against the

delay of 56 days in filing the captioned appeal stands condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 262/2025 3. The challenge in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:18.08.2025 18:18:46 Signature Not Verified ITA 262/2025 Page 2 of 13 Act, 1961 (the Act) filed by the Revenue

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

condone the delay of 275 days in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing. 6. The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.18,00,100/-for non deduction of TDS u/s 194 C of the Act by invoking the provisions of section

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3) of the Act and thus the said appeal was found not maintainable by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 4. Learned CIT(A), as it appears from the order impugned observed the following while rejecting the appeal preferred by the assessee : “3.4. I have carefully considered the explanation of the appellant in support

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

275(1)(c) is as below: “(c) in any other case, after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

275(1)(c) is as below: “(c) in any other case, after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

275(1)(c) is as below: “(c) in any other case, after the expiry of financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

delay is condoned and cross objections are taken up for adjudication on merits prior to the appeal as the same have raised pure questions of law. 6. Ground no. 1 of Cross Objections; It can be observed that following are the relevant dates and sequence of events which are canvassed by Ld Sr. Counsel for the assessee : 1st 17.12.2009 Assessment

ANKUSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyita No. 186 /Del/ 2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Ankush Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward-40 (1) H-4 & 5/88, Suvidha Kunj, Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi 110034 Pan :Aetpg 8736Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/3/2021 Date Of Order : 24/3/2021

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by making an addition of Rs. 14, 78, 275/-on account of the peak credit, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed ex parte by order dated 23/6/2014 and enhanced the addition

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

275]. The Court clarified that if an award is contrary to the substantive provisions of law of India, in effect, it is in contravention of Section 28(1)(a) of the 1996 Act. Similarly, violating terms of the contract, in effect, is in contravention of Section 28(3) of the 1996 Act. 68. In Ssangyong Engg. & Construction

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

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SRI LANKA CRICKET

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 213B, the department formally documented the office relocation in their records and included it in our registration letter. 7. The “reasonable cause” for non disclosure of documents at the time of filing written statement, as stipulated in Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC as applicable to Commercial Courts and as stated in the application filed by Digitally Signed

S R FOILS & TISSUE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12

condonation of delay is available on record. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was first fixed for hearing on 27.07.2015. On that date the assessee requested that the appeal be kept in abeyance till the decision on quantum appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that section 275

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS PVT. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

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

delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITA 877/2015 7 other connected matters Page 3 of5 V\ ( ; ITA 877 to 882/2015 4. The short issue that arises for consideration in these appeals from the common order dated 13^ March, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA Nos.4438/Del/2012