DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,, 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

viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from the date of payment of tax (01.05.1990) to the date of issue of refund. There is no dispute about this example

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., 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

viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from the date of payment of tax (01.05.1990) to the date of issue of refund. There is no dispute about this example

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

viii) Interest payable by the Department @ 1.5% per month for 6 Rs. 7,200 months (1-5-1990-31-10-1990), i.e., @ Rs. 9% on 80,000 30. This example illustrates payment of interest on the refund from the date of payment of tax (01.05.1990) to the date of issue of refund. There is no dispute about this example

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

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

viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings [or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 41 of 74 245Q and ending with

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

viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings [or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 41 of 74 245Q and ending with

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

viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings [or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 41 of 74 245Q and ending with

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7, DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITA 196/2024 2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act), impugning an order dated 09.01.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in ITA No.4722/Del/2012 (Assessee’s appeal) and in ITA No.4718/Del/2012 (Revenue

ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

36(1)(va) since it is not a mistake apparent from record. Date of order of section 154 is 31.03.2021 and date of supreme Court 1097/Del/2023 order in checkmate services Private Limited v CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 is 12.10.2022. 8. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the AO u/s 154 r.w.s

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

VIII) Delay in the delivery of an arbitral award, by itself, is not sufficient to set aside that award. It is only when the effect of the undue delay in the delivery of an arbitral award is explicit and adversely reflects on the findings therein, such delay and, more so, if it remains unexplained, can be construed to result

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES P. LTD.

Accordingly, LPA 362/2020 is allowed,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

36 of 53 same, for the purpose of proceeding thereafter to the confiscation stage. 62. The act of the concerned authorities in provisionally attaching what is believed to be ―proceeds of crime‖ is an intermediate step provided for the learned Adjudicating Authority to meaningfully exercise its adjudicatory powers and in the present case, due to the advent and prevalence

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (EARLIER KNOWN AS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE), DELHI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Circle-19(1), Know As Oriental Bank Of Delhi Commerce), Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, Delhi Pan: Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishana, Ca Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr)

Delay of 458 days in filing of the Revenue’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case

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

1) Suppl.SCR 403, 1998 (7) SCC 123,\n1998 (6) JT 242, 1998 (5) SCALE 105], it was averred/held, as\nfollows, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:\n".... 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of\ndiscretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not\nsay that such discretion can be exercised only

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

1) Suppl.SCR 403, 1998 (7) SCC 123,\n1998 (6) JT 242, 1998 (5) SCALE 105], it was averred/held, as\nfollows, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:\n\".... 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of\ndiscretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not\nsay that such discretion can be exercised only

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MS. PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeals filed by the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

delay of 18 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. ITA 308/2022 1. Present income tax appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 04th December, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2124/Del/2015 and ITA No. 2810/Del/2015 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2010-11. This

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

viii) But for Section 13A of the Act, voluntary contributions would not be taxable income since it did not fall under any of the heads of the income under Section 14 of the Act. It would not come under the head ‘income from other sources’. The expenditure incurred by a political party on its political activities was allowable

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

viii) But for Section 13A of the Act, voluntary contributions would not be taxable income since it did not fall under any of the heads of the income under Section 14 of the Act. It would not come under the head ‘income from other sources’. The expenditure incurred by a political party on its political activities was allowable

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

viii) But for Section 13A of the Act, voluntary contributions would not be taxable income since it did not fall under any of the heads of the income under Section 14 of the Act. It would not come under the head ‘income from other sources’. The expenditure incurred by a political party on its political activities was allowable