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

section 143(1) the Act was received with demand payable of Rs. 42,47,54,300/-. 30.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company. 29.10.2015 The AO vide order sheet entry dated 29.10.2015 asked the assessee to remove the defect in the return of income and pay taxes u/s 140A of the Act. However

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

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

Section 57(iii) of the Act and this cannot be granted since the INC did not place on record the factual basis for such a claim. 124. The legal position is that no deduction can be allowed with respect to the expenditure incurred by the political party for any purpose whatsoever if it fails to comply with the basic requirements

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

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

Section 57(iii) of the Act and this cannot be granted since the INC did not place on record the factual basis for such a claim. 124. The legal position is that no deduction can be allowed with respect to the expenditure incurred by the political party for any purpose whatsoever if it fails to comply with the basic requirements

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Section 57(iii) of the Act and this cannot be granted since the INC did not place on record the factual basis for such a claim. 124. The legal position is that no deduction can be allowed with respect to the expenditure incurred by the political party for any purpose whatsoever if it fails to comply with the basic requirements

FISERV INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishifiserv India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Regus Elegance, Level-2, Jasola Circle-9(1), District Centre, Old Mathura New Delhi Road, Delhi Pan: Aaccr0787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. That the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] erred on the facts and in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer (“AO”) in passing the order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) reducing the MAT credit entitlement of the Appellant to the extent

P D MEMORIAL TRUST,DELHI vs. DLC-CA-2, RANGE- 48, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

279/- as income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal by holding that the denial of claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act in processing of the ITR under section 143(1) of the Act was justified as there was a delay in filing/uploading the audit report in form

DAULAT RAM,REWARI vs. ITO, REWARI (JAO), REWARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Daulat Ram, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O- Anu Jain & Co., First Rewari (Jao) Floor, Near Palika Complex, Model Town, Rewari Pan: Avppr6711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Monoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Delay of 339 days in filing the asseessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities action

BALVINDER SINGH,KARNAL, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KARNAL, KARNAL ,HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

delay of 283 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities action assessing the assessee’s interest component

MAHENDER MALIK,HISAR vs. ITO,WARD -(1), HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

delay of 3 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action assessing the assessee’s interest component

GANGA BISHAN,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

Delay of 1 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2 ITA No. 2179/Del./2025 Ganga Bishan 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness

MAWASI,HARYANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Delay of 111 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 2 ITA No. 5020/Del./2025 Mawasi 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties is that of correctness

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

279 Taxman 74 (SC). He, therefore, set aside the impugned assessment order with a direction to pass an order afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment

DIGITE INC.,CALIFORINA vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC. USA,PUNE vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

DIGITE INC., USA,PUNE vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

M/S DIGITE INC. USA,USA vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground of appeal No.4 is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singh

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for assessee’s A. Y. 2007-08 and 2009-10 and these appeals are admitted for adjudication. 11. Now, we take up the ITA No. 4918/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2007- 08 as the lead case. 11.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. ACB (INDIA) POWER LTD.

condonation of 20 days delay in filing the appeal and also 72 days delay in refilling the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, we allow the delay in refilling as well as the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of as allowed. ITA 331/2025 4. This appeal has been filed with

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. ACB (INDIA) POWER LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

condonation of 20 days delay in filing the appeal and also 72 days delay in refilling the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the applications, we allow the delay in refilling as well as the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the applications are disposed of as allowed. ITA 331/2025 4. This appeal has been filed with