W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

3 days in filing of appeal in ITA No.1337/PN/2015 to ITA No.1339/PN/2015 for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition. After considering the same, the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. The issue arising in all the appeals before us is against intimation issued under section

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

3 days in filing of appeal in ITA No.1337/PN/2015 to ITA No.1339/PN/2015 for which the assessee has filed a condonation petition. After considering the same, the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. The issue arising in all the appeals before us is against intimation issued under section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 144C of the Act refers to the Dispute Resolution Panel. Sub-section (1) of section 144C provides that in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment to the assessee if he proposes to make on or after

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 5 Limitation Act, the appellant/revenue sought condonation of delay in re-filing the respective appeals as captioned after removal of defects raised by the Registry of this court. Despite the original filing of these appeals being beyond prescribed period of time, no specific application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals was filed with either of these appeals

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3) of I.T. Act, leading us unhesitatingly to reject assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 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

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

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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (OSD), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2553/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, (Appeals)-Ix, Income Tax Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 Office, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 2641/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1999-00 Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-6(1), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q Ita No. 468/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1994-95 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Jcit(Osd), Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-6(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm0829Q

3, 2009 further clarified as to what the judgment meant. “Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No...CC 10437/2009. Leave granted. In income tax matters, it is well settled that if the question is not properly framed, then, at times, confusion arises resulting in wrong answers. The present batch of Civil Appeals is an illustration of the proposition mentioned herein-above