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

36 in which the assessee has filed this appeal; the date of communication of the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) is 16.12.2013. As per Section 253(3) of I.T. Act, the time limit for filing of appeal is within 60 days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated

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

36. The party shows that besides acting bonafide, it had taken all possible steps within its power and control and had approached the court without any unnecessary delay. The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it would have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention." (emphasis is ours

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

delay cannot be condoned on any ground. 6. There is a purpose for providing the prescribed period for filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act, i.e. after filing the objections till the disposal of the same, there is automatic stay of the operation of award. No execution under Section 36

FLYING FABRICATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

FLYING FABRICATION ,GURGAON vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURUR

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?" 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Appellate Tribunal - Appeals to(Condonation of delay) - Assessment years 1994-95 and 1996-97- Whether where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wrongly advised by his Chartered Accountant earlier not to file appeal, in view of fact that assessee produced

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container Cooperation of India Ltd ITA No. 1555/Del/2012, 1363/Del/2012, 3960/Del/2010 and 1364/Del/2012 Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08 9. Now coming on the merits of the case we first take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA NO. 1363/Del/2012 for Assessment Year

CIT vs. MOUNTAIN TOUCH BUILDERS P. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

delay cannot be condoned on any ground. 6. There is a purpose for providing the prescribed period for filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act, i.e. after filing the objections till the OMP No.388/2012 Page 8 of 8 disposal of the same, there is automatic stay of the operation of award. No execution under Section 36

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

36% of the total\nfixed assets which is substantial. In view of all the above reasons,\nthis Panel holds that the company is into technical consultancy,\ndesign and development of software etc in contrast to the domain of\nthe taxpayer mainly into software development services, the TPO is\ndirected to exclude this comparable.”\nPage 6 of 24\n\nITA

INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special Leave

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

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

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

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MODIPON LTD.

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2OO3 is retrospective in nature?" These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner :- "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. AIMIL Limited

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to Section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature?” 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the 2009:DHC:5671-DB “7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, as well as, the assessee

ANIL JAIN ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee captioned above is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2011-12

Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The assessee as per its grounds of appeal has raised several grievances. One of the grievance relates to adjudication of first appellate order ex-parte refusing to condone delay of 36

SUGANDH,MORADABAD vs. ITD, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

Delay is condoned. 4.2 The observations of the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. In this case, the appellant had made payments from the contributions made by the employees to Provident Fund and ESI fund, in various month of financial year 2017-18. The appellant claimed these payments as deductions from the total

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. D.K. JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L. P. Sahuacit D. K. Jain Circle – 32(1) D-19, Nazamuddin East, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi

36, dated 21.07.2010 has been mentioned as date of communication of order appealed against; however, the departmental appeal has been filed in the office of the Tribunal on 29.03.2012. The office issued defect notice to the revenue intimating that departmental appeal is time barred by 557 days. 3. The revenue department filed affidavit of Neha Yadav, ACIT, Circle