THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. SRI LANKA CRICKET

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Section 213B, the department formally documented the office relocation in their records and included it in our registration letter. 7. The “reasonable cause” for non disclosure of documents at the time of filing written statement, as stipulated in Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC as applicable to Commercial Courts and as stated in the application filed by Digitally Signed

KASREE DEVI,MAWANA MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(3), AYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeal and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. Apropos to the grounds of appeal learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. For the sake of clarity the submissions of the assessee are reproduced as under: “The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

delay is condoned. 5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:21.04.2023 05:07:47 Signature Not Verified Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2697-DB ITA 194/2023 Page 2 of 5 ITA 194/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail via the instant appeal the order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

delay is condoned. 5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:21.04.2023 05:07:47 Signature Not Verified Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2697-DB ITA 194/2023 Page 2 of 5 ITA 194/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail via the instant appeal the order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, NEW DELHI vs. COGNYTE TECHNOLOGIES ISRAEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S VERINT SYSTEMS LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

condone the delay. 5. It is ordered accordingly. 6. The applications shall stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 433/2023 7. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 8. Insofar as AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 434/2023) is concerned, a separate appeal has been filed by the appellant/revenue, which is also on our board today. 9. The appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, NEW DELHI vs. COGNYTE TECHNOLOGIES ISRAEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S VERINT SYSTEMS LTD.)

condone the delay. 5. It is ordered accordingly. 6. The applications shall stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 433/2023 7. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 8. Insofar as AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 434/2023) is concerned, a separate appeal has been filed by the appellant/revenue, which is also on our board today. 9. The appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE vs. MAHESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, DELHI

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal 19/176 Near Usha Mata Mandir Old Rohtak Road , North West Delhi 110035 Pan No. Adupa7276 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the income assessed by the AO at Rs.4,25,47,065/- on estimation basis at 8% of the turn over

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

condoned. We hold and direct accordingly. 3 Krishna Kumar Makrania 4. The assessee before us, mainly challenged the assessment proceedings on this particular count that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act have not been issued and served upon the assessee and the reassessment proceedings finalized u/s. 148 of the Act, is therefore, held to be invalid. 5. The brief

SAINATH SALES AND SERVICES PVT. LTD vs. ITO WARD -22(2), DELHI

condoned. The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 302/2024 & CM APPL. 31316/2024 (Stay) 1. The assessee has instituted the present appeal impugning the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [‘ITAT’] dated 21 June 2023 and has posited the following questions for our consideration:- “(A) Whether the Ld. ITAT is justified in law and facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX vs. PVT. LTD

Appeal is dismissed in limine

delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 2010:DHC:4671-DB ITA 277/2010 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “Act, 1961”) challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1943/Del/2007

AZAD SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Azad Singh Vs Ito Village- Hiron Kudna, Ward-42(1) New Delhi Civic Centre, Jln Marg, Bzxps4944Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2022

delay is condoned appeal is admittedly for hearing . 9. Ground No. 1 is against not providing opportunity to the assessee. Ground No. 1 to 10 are against validity of the proceedings. 10. The assessee has not brought any material in support of his averments. Therefore, these grounds of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed. 11. Ground No. 11 is against

AARTI SINGAL FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2021-22 Aarti Singal Foundation, Vs. Cpc, 4, Amrita Shergil Marg, Bengaluru Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aacta1263F

451 - being allowable expenditure towards application of income for charitable or religious purpose which was incurred by the foundation by ignoring the fact that expenditure incurred by the Foundation is exempt under the Act. 3. That the order dated 25.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5. Mumbai is against

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

451 (Mad)). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point.‖ 5. On the question of rate of depreciation

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

451 (Mad)). In each of these cases, the leasing company was held to be the owner of the asset, and accordingly held entitled to claim depreciation and also at the higher rate applicable on the asset hired out. We are in complete agreement with these decisions on the said point.‖ 5. On the question of rate of depreciation

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

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

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section