COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION- 2, NEW DELHI vs. HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

delay of 103 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:29.10.2025 18:22:45 Signature Not Verified ITA No.304/2025 Page 2 of 46 ITA 304/2025 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant who is the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2, New Delhi under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

5. ……. IV. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable 21 2024 SCC OnLine

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

5. 31.05.2025 Against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 33 days 2.1 The assessee filed an identical condonation petition for both the years for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant extract of the condonation petition is reproduced as under

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

5. 31.05.2025 Against the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 33 days 2.1 The assessee filed an identical condonation petition for both the years for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The relevant extract of the condonation petition is reproduced as under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. M/S STERLING AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of. ITA 105/2023 5. We have heard Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:03.04.2023 16:55:23 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NO : 2023:DHC:2330-DB ITA No.105/2023 Page 2 of 10 5.1 Mr Rai says

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi assumed u/s 263 of the 7 Uday Kumar Vaish Act. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts

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

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

KAPIL STONE CRUSHING CO,KALKA JI, NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI - 110002, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

33,170/- claimed by the assessee was not allowed by the CPC. The then tax consultant of the assessee Shri Vijay Singh Jasoria advised the assessee that adjustment in the ITR and consequent tax demand are due to incorrect processing of return, while suo moto reprocessing of ITR such adjustment will be corrected and resultant demand will be deleted. After

KAPIL STONE CRUSHING CO,KALKA JI, NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI , INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2698और 2697/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2009-10और 2011-12)

33,170/- claimed by the assessee was not allowed by the CPC. The then tax consultant of the assessee Shri Vijay Singh Jasoria advised the assessee that adjustment in the ITR and consequent tax demand are due to incorrect processing of return, while suo moto reprocessing of ITR such adjustment will be corrected and resultant demand will be deleted. After

TANSA TRUST,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Tansa Trust, Vs Acit (Cpc), C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Post Bag No.2, Electronic City B-60/61, Naraina Industrial Area, Post Office, Phase Ii, Bangalore. New Delhi – 110 028. Pragun Finance Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aaatt0504A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vasanti Patel, Ca & Shri M.A. Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

5. The learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act for the above year, with following observation: “3. Decision: This appeal is filed on 17/05/2019 against the order under section 143(1) dated 14/01/2016 indicating substantial delay in filing of the appeal

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NAGESHWAR REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

5. Briefly the facts of the case that assessee is a company dealing in real estate, land trading, trading and development. A search was conducted at the office premises of the company on 31st January 2008. Accordingly, notice under section 153A was issued on 24th November 2008 and 15th July, 2009 further statutory notices were issued. The assessee on 17th

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VINMAN ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

5. Briefly the facts of the case that assessee is a company dealing in real estate, land trading, trading and development. A search was conducted at the office premises of the company on 31st January 2008. Accordingly, notice under section 153A was issued on 24th November 2008 and 15th July, 2009 further statutory notices were issued. The assessee on 17th

M/S. WORLDWIDE REALTORS (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

5. Briefly the facts of the case that assessee is a company dealing in real estate, land trading, trading and development. A search was conducted at the office premises of the company on 31st January 2008. Accordingly, notice under section 153A was issued on 24th November 2008 and 15th July, 2009 further statutory notices were issued. The assessee on 17th

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S WORLDWIDE REALTORS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed and appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

5. Briefly the facts of the case that assessee is a company dealing in real estate, land trading, trading and development. A search was conducted at the office premises of the company on 31st January 2008. Accordingly, notice under section 153A was issued on 24th November 2008 and 15th July, 2009 further statutory notices were issued. The assessee on 17th