NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant extract of the condonation petition is reproduced as under: “ 1. That Mr. Naresh Kumar who is an illiterate Person having PAN No: AAWPK7713J (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") is a law abiding citizen of India. He is Prop. of Veenus Engineering and providing "Construction services" mainly to various

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VIKRAM ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as\ninfructuous

delayed, but the delay was condoned. The core issue revolves around the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was not validly served on the assessee due to being sent to a wrong address and improper affixture

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

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

delay of 103 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 2 of 46 ITA 304/2025 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2, New Delhi under

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2009-10

delay in filing of appeal was condoned and appeal was admitted by the Ld. CIT(A). In this case the assessee has deposited Rs. 32,66,200/- in his bank account during the assessment year relevant for AY 2009-10 and neither the return of income was filed nor any information was provided either

ARCHANA SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay. 6. In the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others the Hon’ble Apex Court held, that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code or any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction

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. CIT-1 vs. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

delays in re-filing the respective appeals are condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 665/2015 & 666/2015 5. The short question that arises for determination in the present appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 29th August 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

PR. CIT-1 vs. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD

The appeals are dismissed

delays in re-filing the respective appeals are condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 665/2015 & 666/2015 5. The short question that arises for determination in the present appeals by the Revenue under Section 260A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 29th August 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

VIVEK VAZIRCHAND KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 28(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

condonation of delay application alongwith the supporting Affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not disproved. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT(Exemptions) CWP 21028-2023 (O&M) wherein

BHOLESHWAR CHOPRA,DELHI vs. WARD 68(5) , DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2340 & 2336/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 बनाम Bholeshwar Chopra Ito Ec 336, Maya Enclave, Vs. Ward 68(5), G 8 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Adupc7256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282/- under Section 36(1)(va) concerning PF/ESL This adjustment is deemed to lack legal basis, as the contributions towards ESI and EPF were made in a timely manner. 5. The Assessee asserts that the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) at the Central Processing Center (CPC) unlawfully issued an order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without adhering

BHOLESHWAR CHOPRA,DELHI vs. WARD 68(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2340 & 2336/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 बनाम Bholeshwar Chopra Ito Ec 336, Maya Enclave, Vs. Ward 68(5), G 8 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Adupc7256R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

282/- under Section 36(1)(va) concerning PF/ESL This adjustment is deemed to lack legal basis, as the contributions towards ESI and EPF were made in a timely manner. 5. The Assessee asserts that the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) at the Central Processing Center (CPC) unlawfully issued an order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without adhering

RITS JEWELLERS PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, FARIDABAD

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12/04/2017 at returned income of Rs. 2,07,909/-. The case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ through the CASS to verify large share premium received during the year. Notice

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

282 010 (Uttar Pradesh).\n(PAN : AAACP9604J)\n(APPELLANT)\nvs.\nDCIT,\nGhaziabad.\n(RESPONDENT)\nASSESSEE BY : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate\nShri M. Pathak, CA\nREVENUE BY : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CITDR\nDate of Hearing : 11.08.2025\nDate of Order : 19.09.2025\nORDER\nPER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM:\n1.\nThe assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned\nCommissioner of Income

AMBEY ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarambey Enterprises Vs. Assessing Officer 30/54 A 1St Floor Gali Ward 58(1) No.8, Vishwas Nagar Delhi Shahdara, Delhi 110032 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdfa 0570D Appellant .. Respondent

section 69A of the Act cannot be made. Therefore, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to be sustained." Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of V.K. Packaging Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and others (266 ITR 283), which observations are reproduced herein below for sake of convenience: "Before parting with the case we would like to state that

SOHUM CHARITABLE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmasohum Charitable Trust, Vs. Cit Exemption, Sector-9, Faridabad, 2431, Chandigarh Faridabad, Sector-7, So Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abcts2337R

section 282 of the Act. The assessee on coming to know that the order has been uploaded in the e-filing portal rejecting the claim of the Sohum Charitable Trust assessee, had come forward to file this appeal with a delay condonation

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

282 providing that service of notice in the form of any electronic record as provided in Chapter IV of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) will constitute valid service. 2.7.3 Under Indian Evidence Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence