PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 292B of the Act.” Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 292B of the Act.” Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 292B of the Act.” Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 292B of the Act.” Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 292B of the Act.” Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated

V3S INFRATECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 292B of the Act." Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which-were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated

V3S INFRATECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 292B of the Act." Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which-were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: (i) Dimension Apparels; (ii) Micron Steels; and (iii) Micra India. 21. In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated

BTL INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nas indicated above

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel\nappearing for the parties. We do not find any reason\nto interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice\nEntertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011\nSCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43], [CIT v.\nDimension Apparels (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del\n7588 : (2015) 370 ITR 288], [CIT v. Chanakaya\nExports

M/S. NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Nokia Siemens Circle-18(2), Networks Pvt. Ltd.), 7Th Floor, Room No. 406, Building No. 9A, Dlf Cyber City, C.R. Building, Sector 25A, I.P. Estate, Gurgaon-122002 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaccn3871F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri T.M. Shiva Kumar, Cit Dr

292B could cure technical defects, it could not cure jurisdictional defect in assessment notice. The court therein held that framing of assessment against non-existing entity/person was a jurisdictional defect and participation by the amalgamated I.T.A. No. 3169/Del/2016 Assessment year 2006-07 company in the assessment proceedings could not cure the defect because there could be no estoppel

BTL INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nas indicated above

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel\nappearing for the parties. We do not find any reason\nto interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice\nEntertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011\nSCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43], [CIT v.\nDimension Apparels (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del\n7588 : (2015) 370 ITR 288], [CIT v. Chanakaya\nExports

BTL INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nas indicated above

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel\nappearing for the parties. We do not find any reason\nto interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice\nEntertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011\nSCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43], [CIT v.\nDimension Apparels (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del\n7588 : (2015) 370 ITR 288], [CIT v. Chanakaya\nExports

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

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

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

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

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

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

delay could not possibly have been condoned. 100. In any event, The audited 'consolidated' accounts filed before the CIT (A) also do not satisfy the mandatory legal requirement. The Court pointed out to Mr Aggarwal during the course of hearing various discrepancies and shortcomings therein. The auditor’s report is not in the format that one expects a duly qualified

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. ANUJ BANSAL

delay is condoned. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. Consequently, the above-captioned applications stand disposed of, in aforesaid terms. ITA 537/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 6. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”]. 7. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

292B of the Act which defines ‘international transaction’ for the purpose of transfer pricing legislation. Explanation to section 92B of the Act was inserted w.r.e from 1.4.2002 i.e. right from the time of inception of transfer pricing legislation in India. 13. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd Vs. ACIT

BTL INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम Btl Industries Ltd., Dcit, (Merged With & Now Known As Vs. Central Circle-Ii, M/S Btl Holding Co. Ltd.), Faridabad, C/O Srs Mall, Third Floor, Haryana. Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No.Aaccb0573C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent &

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