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

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 if the delay is\nwithin a certain limit. Length

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

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 if the delay is\nwithin a certain limit. Length

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

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned AO observed that the assessee company is stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of power distribution transformers and EPC projects. The assessee filed its return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 on 30.3.2015 u/s 139 of the Act declaring

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

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned AO observed that the assessee company is stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of power distribution transformers and EPC projects. The assessee filed its return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 on 30.3.2015 u/s 139 of the Act declaring

DEEPAK CHHABRA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-49(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

43,190/- during the relevant year. Out of the said cash deposits, the AO was not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee about the source of cash deposits aggregating to Rs.98,30,200/-. Hence, he taxed the cash deposits of Rs.98,30,200/-undfer section 69A rws 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condoning the delay in filing the present appeals. 5.1 The Ld. AR contended that Columns 13 to 16 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended On 31st March 2014 of the ITR 7 provides claim of exemption under section 10 of the Act. Column 13 of Part B – TI Statement of Income for The Period Ended

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

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

AMIT GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryamit Gupta Vs. Ito D-63, Gf, Kaushambi, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad, Up-201 012 Ghaziabad

B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Mohammad Ashraf, C.A. Revenue by Shri Zahid Parvez, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 09.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.09.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ghaziabad relating to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The relevant facts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. P M ELECTRONICS LTD

Delay 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

RISHI RAJ JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2018-19

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is taken up for hearing on merits of the case. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee's premises at D-70, Defence Colony, Delhi was searched on 26.07.2017 wherein jewellery worth Rs. 2,29,43,309/- was found out of which jewellery worth Rs.59

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. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 1027/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1028/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1029/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1030/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1031/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1032/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1034/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year

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. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member ITA No. 1027/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1028/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1029/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1030/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1031/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1032/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year. 2015-16 ITA No. 1034/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year

ITO, WARD-35(7), NEW DELHI vs. SUMITRA DEVI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11 & Co. No. 173/Del/2022 Asstt. Year 2010-11 Ito, Ward-35(7), Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi, New Delhi. Plot No. 132/133, First Floor, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi-110 085. Pan Craps6145R (Appellant) (Respondent)

43,50,000/-(the appellant's share being 50%), at the prevailing market rate on which stamp duty was paid. Hence, the holding period of the plot from the date of allotment 12.06.2007 till date of sale 29.10.2009 was approximately 28 months. Thus, the appellant received Rs. 3,21,75,000/- during the relevant assessment year

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

delay of 1726 days in filing the cross objection is condoned. CO No.118/Del/2024 6. During the hearing before us, the assessee reiterated the above fact of inadvertently offering the above capital gains and submitted that the AO is obligated to assess the correct income relying upon Board Circular No.14 XL-35, dated 11.04.1955. It was further submitted that tax collection

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

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising