ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

2. The assessee has also filed cross objections challenging the validity of penalty orders alleging that the same are barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The ld. AR submitted that the cross objections of the assessee being on legal grounds, may kindly be taken up first and the application for condonation of delay

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

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

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

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

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)

2) issued on 29.06.2021. The order of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was ultimately issued to the appellant on 23.12.2021 inter alia making adjustment of an aggregate amount of Rs.23,23,80,888/-. The assessment was finalized on 21.09.2022 under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act; upon assessment of income at Rs.152

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

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

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 that the order of the CIT(A) dated 29.03.2016 was received by post in the middle of April, 2016 which

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

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

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

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , [CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7588 : (2015) 370 ITR 288] , [CIT v. Chanakaya Exports

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

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

condoned: Sl. No. Delay in filing the appeal Appeal number 1. 58 days 3509/Del/2025 2. 58 days 3510/Del/2025 3. 58 days 3511/Del/2025 4. 58 days 3512/Del/2025 5. 58 days 3513/Del/2025 6. 28 days 3514/Del/2025 7. 58 days 3515/Del/2025 3. We take up the assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 3509/Del/2025 in assessment years 2011-12 as the “lead