CIT vs. ELEGANT TRAVELS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

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

Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, the last date for filing the appeals was 26th October 2007. Keeping that view if the actual dates for filing of the two appeals are taken into consideration then the actual delay works out to far more than what is claimed by the Revenue. As far as ITA No. 453 of 2012 is concerned

RIZWAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

Section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but, none attended to by the assessee and the notices came back with the remarks “Refused to take”. The A.O. thereafter issued letter to the assessee as to why income should not be estimated because of the non- cooperation from the side of the assessee. The assessee attended the proceedings with

M/S. AUTO IGNITION LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed and matter is

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) along with application for condonation of delay of 481

SPICE ENFOTAINMENT LTD

Bench: CASES OF HMJ MANJU GOEL

condonation of 58 days delay in filing the application under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. For reasons

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INTNL T vs. ERICSSON RADIO SYSTEMS A.B.

The appeal is allowed in the

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

481 of the Companies Act, on the one hand, and the extinguishment of the corporate personality of the transferee (or amalgamating/merging) company cannot be lost sight of, because the element of voluntariness inherent in the latter circumstance together with the willingness of the transferee company to “take over” the property, liabilities and functioning of the transferee company is lacking

KARMA ECOTECH PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRLE 13(1), NEW DLHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

condonation of delay u/s 119(2) of the Act.” Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that there was a delay of only 18 days in filing of the Form which was filed before the due date for filing of return but beyond the prescribed due date

GURUDWARA SHRI GURU SINGH SABHA,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay has not been condoned. We find that there are catena of cases where the hon’ble High Courts have held that the filing of Form 10/audit report is directory and not mandatory and that if the audit report was filed at any time before the Page 3 of 6 ITA No. 1878/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2020-21] Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh

NAVEEN GARG,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-34(1), DELHI

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing appeal and appeal of appellant/assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Naveen Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 34(1), Hd-56, M/S.Shree Bankey Delhi Bihari Pulses Pulses Mills, 2Nd Floor, Pitampura, New Delhi Pin: 1100 34 Pan No. Agdpk1562G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay of 32 days and appeal are against order dated 21.11.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of order dated 26.03.2024 by the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] , [CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7588 : (2015) 370 ITR 288] , [CIT v. Chanakaya Exports

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SALUJA CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

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

delay is, accordingly, condoned. 5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 62/2021 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:22.09.2023 19:58:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 62/2021 Page 2 of 4 7. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 20.04.2020, passed

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. RITES LTD., GURGAON

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 49 days in filing the present cross objection is hereby condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an 4 ITA No.6447/Del./2017 ITA No.6448/Del./2017 CO No.78/Del.2019 amount of Rs.1,15,21,250/- & Rs.13,21,75,000/- by invoking the provisions contained

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. RITES LTD., GURGAON

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 49 days in filing the present cross objection is hereby condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an 4 ITA No.6447/Del./2017 ITA No.6448/Del./2017 CO No.78/Del.2019 amount of Rs.1,15,21,250/- & Rs.13,21,75,000/- by invoking the provisions contained

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ACME TELE POWER LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTION LTD.), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that de hors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction, and (ii) With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working

M/S. ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that de hors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction, and (ii) With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working

M/S. ACME CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Dcit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Circle-1(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] M/S. Acme Cleantech Solutions Vs Addl.Cit, Ltd., C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, Range-1 D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs M/S. Acme Tele Power Ltd. Circle-1(1) [Now, Known As M/S. Acme New Delhi Cleantech Solutions Ltd.] C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 Pan-Aaeca0914A Appellant Respondent

Section 92B of the Act of the expression "receivables" does not mean that de hors the context every item of "receivables" appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with foreign AEs would automatically be characterized as an international transaction, and (ii) With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working

STAR WIRE (INDIA) VIDYUT PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed partly with relief as\nallowed above

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member\Nand\Nshri Anubhav Sharma\N\Nita No.4259/Del/2025\N[Assessment Year: 2023-24]\N\Nstar Wire (India) Vidyut\Nprivate Limited,\N8C/6 Wea, 3Rd Floor, Abdul\Naziz Road, Karol Bagh,\Ndelhi-110005\Npan-Aaccp9042J\Nappellant\N\Nappellant By\Nshri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv.\Nshri Abmyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv.\Nshri Sohum Dua, Adv.\N\Nrespondent By\Nshri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N03.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N17.09.2025\N\Ndeputy Commissioner Of Income\Ntax, Circle-22(2),\Nvs E-2 Block, S.P. Mukherjee Civic\Ncentre, Minto Road,\Nnew Delhi-110002\Nrespondent\N\Norder\N\Nper Anubhav Sharma, Jm,\N\Nthis Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated\N02.06.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') In Appeal\Nno.Nfac/202-23/10468552 Arising Out Of Order Of The Assessing Officer\Ndated 11.03.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act Pertaining To\N Assessment Year 2023-24.\N\N2.\Nthe Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income At\Nrs.Nil After Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act. The Case Was Selected\Nfor Scrutiny & During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed\Nthat The Assessee Has Claimed Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act However Failed To\Nfulfil The Condition Required To Claim Deduction In The Form Of Filing Form\N10Ccb Which Should Be Filed Before Specified Date Which Was 30.09.2023.\Nhowever, This Form Was Filed On 23.10.2023. Therefore, The Disallowance U/S\N80Ia Of Rs.4,40,03,570/- Was Made.\N\N2.

condonation of delay).\n\n4.\nOn hearing both the sides, we find that admittedly Form 10CB was filed\non 23.10.2023 and the same was filed during the assessment proceedings. The\nissue is no more res-integra after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nof India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Maharashtra vs G.M.\nKnitting Industries

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The assessee is a private limited company who filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 129603/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, on 16.12.2010 the ld Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, found that there are complexity in the accounts of the assessee and in the interest of revenue its books

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case. 6. In the present case, the decision rendered in the above case will squarely apply and not the judgment in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. relied upon the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee