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

The appeal is dismissed against the

1. For the reasons stated in the application, 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

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

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

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

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

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

275 ITR 451 (Mad)). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point.‖ 5. On the question of rate of depreciation

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

275 ITR 451 (Mad)). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point.‖ 5. On the question of rate of depreciation

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)

1) got merged with the order under 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

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

LAL BABU PANDEY,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para 32 of the Judgment. Such view also draws support from the observations made in recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Khyati Realtors

LAL BABU PANDEY,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(4), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) itself explains this position in Para 32 of the Judgment. Such view also draws support from the observations made in recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Khyati Realtors

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

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

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2016 of the CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation of 275 days. The assessee filed condonation application together with the affidavit of the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The AR of the assessee submitted