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 139(9) of the Act is condoned by the AD. Therefore, to regularize proceedings in scrutiny cases where assessee has already removed the defects as specified u/s 139(9), in such cases under scrutiny, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), AD shall condone the delay

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

section 139(9) of the Act is condoned by the AD. Therefore, to regularize proceedings in scrutiny cases where assessee has already removed the defects as specified u/s 139(9), in such cases under scrutiny, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), AD shall condone the delay

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condoning delay in filing of the application for registration under Section 12A/ 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse?” 2. In the other appeals, the following common substantial question of law was framed on the same day: - “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the order

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.02.2005. The Registry has pointed out delay of 3853 days in filing these appeal. Therefore, at the outset, we have to address the issue of condonation of delay. 3

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.02.2005. The Registry has pointed out delay of 3853 days in filing these appeal. Therefore, at the outset, we have to address the issue of condonation of delay. 3

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.02.2005. The Registry has pointed out delay of 3853 days in filing these appeal. Therefore, at the outset, we have to address the issue of condonation of delay. 3

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.02.2005. The Registry has pointed out delay of 3853 days in filing these appeal. Therefore, at the outset, we have to address the issue of condonation of delay. 3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

Section 35D\nof the Act appeal was filed.\n2.3 Consequently, the appellant appealed before Ld. CIT-(A) on 07-\n11-2020 and hence, the delay of 4 years and 3 months (1537 days).\nThe period of delay is tabulated as under:-\nSl. No.\nParticulars\nDate\nPeriod of delay\n1\nDate of receipt of Intimation | 24-07-2016\nissued

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

Section 35D\nof the Act appeal was filed.\n2.3 Consequently, the appellant appealed before Ld. CIT-(A) on 07-\n11-2020 and hence, the delay of 4 years and 3 months (1537 days).\nThe period of delay is tabulated as under:-\nSl. No.\nParticulars\nDate\nPeriod of delay\n1\nDate of receipt of Intimation\nissued

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

3. The appeal is late by 1540 days. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay which reads as under: 4 4. The application is supported by the following affidavit: 5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contents of the letter requesting for condonation of delay. We are aware that the power to condone the appeal must

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)

3) of the Act. Thus, it is clearly a case of lapse and is a direct result of deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant. In view of the above, the delay of 135 days in filling of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown under section

B.B. NIGADE AND SONS AND UMA CONSTRUCTIONS JV,KOLHAPUR vs. TDS GHAZIABAD, TDS CPC GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4435/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम B.B.Nigade & Sons & Uma Tds, Cpc Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions Jv, Vs. Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, H.No.157A Nirmitee Bungalow, U.P. Plot No.64, Vaibhav Housing Soc., Ujalaiwadi, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aabfb4721A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the law of limitation being substantive, the power of discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judiciously and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The parties are expected to approach the Court in adherence to this general principle. Thus, filing an appeal

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condonation of delay in filing the instant appeals is to be rejected as lacking 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 249(3

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

condonation of delay in filing the instant appeals is to be rejected as lacking 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of Section 249(3

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

section 9(1)\n(vii) (b) of the Act.\n\n8. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal filed, after\ninordinate delay of 1021 days i.e. on 08-12-2017with endorsement\nat the bottom of appeal that the limitation expires on 21-02-2015\nand the copy of the order was communicated

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

section 253(3) of the Act. Sufficient 1. Mental & physical illness of Appellant cause of 2. Non-service of impugned order; delay 3. Illiteracy of Appellant 4. Bonafide intention …….. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore humbly prayed and requested: 1) Allow the present appeal on merits considering illness, unsound mind

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

section 253(3) of the Act. Sufficient 1. Mental & physical illness of Appellant cause of 2. Non-service of impugned order; delay 3. Illiteracy of Appellant 4. Bonafide intention …….. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is therefore humbly prayed and requested: 1) Allow the present appeal on merits considering illness, unsound mind

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

3. The delay in filing the appeal is purely unintentional and occurred due to a bona fide mistake. There was neither any willful negligence nor any deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. 4. The Appellant humbly prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly take a sympathetic and humanitarian view of the situation and condone the delay in the interest