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

b) furnishes incorrect information in the statement which is required to be delivered or caused to be delivered under sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. (2) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which

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

b) furnishes incorrect information in the statement which is required to be delivered or caused to be delivered under sub- section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. (2) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

b) or clause (c) to Explanation 1. Why and for what reasons the amount of Rs.18,66,00,000/- represented an ascertained and known liability, is not indicated or stated. The nature and character of debt is not mentioned and adverted to. The Assessing Officer also noticed that in the earlier years, the Debt Redemption Reserve was offered or added

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

condone any delay in making such report. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Bank and having regard to the adequacy of the paid-up capital and reserves of a non- banking financial company in relation to its deposit liabilities, declare by order in writing that the provisions

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

condone any delay in making such report. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Bank and having regard to the adequacy of the paid-up capital and reserves of a non- banking financial company in relation to its deposit liabilities, declare by order in writing that the provisions

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

condone any delay in making such report. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Bank and having regard to the adequacy of the paid-up capital and reserves of a non- banking financial company in relation to its deposit liabilities, declare by order in writing that the provisions

DHARAMVIR KHOSLA,. vs. DCIT CC-5, NEW DELHI , .

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and ld

condonation of delay since assessee's application for rectification of the\nintimation under section 143(1) of the Act has been filed within time and same is\npending disposal. With the above said observation, the grounds of the assessee are\nrejected.\"\nPage | 12\nITA Nos. 3976 & 3977/Del/2025\nDharamvirKhosla (AY: 2019-20 & 2020-21)\n9. However, what is material is that

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

3)(i): “(d) The exemption is restricted to such portion of the income as is in fact applied, or accumulated or set apart for application, to religious or charitable 2012:DHC:3211-DB ITA 17/2011 etc. Page 25 of 38 purposes within the taxable territories. The territorial limit of application of income –viz. the taxable territories – is as essential

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

3) read with section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because: (a) the assessee was having the reasonable cause of not depositing the tax on time and the good and sufficient reasons for not depositing the tax were totally ignored by the Ld. CIT(A). (b) the imposition of the penalty is discretionary in nature and not mandatory

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

b) of the Form No.3CB and had not shown the same as disallowance. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has committed a grave legal error in processing the return of the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the matters of Kvaverner John

TINNA RUBBER AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

b) of the Form No.3CB and had not shown the same as disallowance. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has committed a grave legal error in processing the return of the assessee under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the matters of Kvaverner John

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

b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras

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

b) Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of N Balakrishnan vs M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras

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

3) That the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that no addition by way of adjustment while processing /intimation the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) towards the delayed deposit of the employees contribution towards ESI and PF [though deposited within the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) can be made. It would not fall

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

3) That the authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that no addition by way of adjustment while processing /intimation the return of income u/s. 143(1)(a) towards the delayed deposit of the employees contribution towards ESI and PF [though deposited within the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) can be made. It would not fall

THE HISAR LEADING BANK CO-OP NON-AGRI THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,HISAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

condoned the delay of 10 days and\nshould have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is\nconcerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal\nis squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

SHIVANI TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shivani Tayal Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-27, Shop No.9-10, Ward 49(1), Mansarovar Garden, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Andpt8647E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate Ragini Handa Revenue By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Dated

condoned the delay of 10 days and should have decided the appeal on its merit. In so far as, merit is concerned. It is the case of the Assessee that the issueinvolved in the appeal is squarely covered in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of union of India Vs. Rajiv Bansal (supra

MITTAL HOMES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-17(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3. The Ld.AR argued and first took up the legal ground\nrelated to assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO for\nreopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. The\nLd.AR submitted a chart related to issuance of notice under\nsection 148 of the Act and finally, the order passed under\nsection 148A(d) of the Act and the notice