PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a private limited company who filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 129603/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010 the ld Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are complexity in the accounts of the assessee and in the interest of revenue its books

PR. COMMISSIONER OF I. TAX-DELHI-2 vs. M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of. ITA No. 476-479/2016. ITA No. 481-483/2016 & ITA No. 490/2016 4. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 23'"'' December 2015 and the common order dated 22"'' January 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in the following appeals

PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.TAX-DELHI-2 vs. M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of. ITA No. 476-479/2016. ITA No. 481-483/2016 & ITA No. 490/2016 4. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 23'"'' December 2015 and the common order dated 22"'' January 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in the following appeals

PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.TAX-DELHI-2 vs. M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The application is disposed of. ITA No. 476-479/2016. ITA No. 481-483/2016 & ITA No. 490/2016 4. The challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 23'"'' December 2015 and the common order dated 22"'' January 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in the following appeals

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

2A 20.12.2023 Appeal filed by the assessee against the above intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 338 days 3. 28.02.2025 CIT(A) passed his order not condoning the (page no. 170 of PB) delay of 338 of days in filing the appeal and the appeal was not admitted for adjudication

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

2A 20.12.2023 Appeal filed by the assessee against the above intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 338 days 3. 28.02.2025 CIT(A) passed his order not condoning the (page no. 170 of PB) delay of 338 of days in filing the appeal and the appeal was not admitted for adjudication

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,USA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') mean only the 'jurisdictional' Principal or Chief Commissioner

M/S. VALLEY IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2011-12

2A. That without prejudice, to G.N. I. under the facts and circumstances. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law as well as on merits in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. If any. B. That under the facts and circumstances. there existed a reasonable cause and justifiable reasons for not depositing the self' - asstt. Tax within the time prescribed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

condonation of delay. (m). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court eventually directed that the entire period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of computing limitation, and the balance period of limitation available on 15.03.2020 would commence from 01.03.2022. (n). Further, in cases where the limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the Court granted all persons a fresh

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

VOITH HYDRO P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay was condoned. The core issue revolves around the interplay of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the time limits for passing the final assessment order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 are mutually inclusive and that the period of limitation must be determined with reference

MUFG BANK LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all five appeals of the assessee are allowed

delay is hereby condoned.\n1.1 The present adjudication involves a batch of five appeals pertaining to the same assessee for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order on the ground of limitation considering the provisions of section 144C(13) r.w.s

M/S. SUPERBRANDS LIMITED (UK),NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

delay is condoned. 6. Except for appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 3115/DEL/2009, the assessee has raised additional ground which is common in all the Assessment Years and reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and void

SUPER BRANDS LTD (UK),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of as

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

delay is condoned. 6. Except for appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 3115/DEL/2009, the assessee has raised additional ground which is common in all the Assessment Years and reads as under: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and void

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BBN TRANSPORTATION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

condone the delay caused in the filing of the Cross Objections before the Tribunal in case of ACIT CC-3 vs M/s Goldstar Cement Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 6177/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09. 4.0 Now we take up the application for the admission of an additional ground which is identical in the cases of ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi