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

condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, lacks credibility.Hence, the assessee’s appeal is held to be barred by Limitation, having regard to Section 253(3) read with Section 253(5

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act on the same day i.e. 19.12.2005 in Form No.10G under Rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. An application for condonation of delay

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act on the same day i.e. 19.12.2005 in Form No.10G under Rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. An application for condonation of delay

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act on the same day i.e. 19.12.2005 in Form No.10G under Rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. An application for condonation of delay

B.B. NIGADE AND SONS AND UMA CONSTRUCTIONS JV,KOLHAPUR vs. TDS GHAZIABAD, TDS CPC GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4435/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम B.B.Nigade & Sons & Uma Tds, Cpc Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions Jv, Vs. Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, H.No.157A Nirmitee Bungalow, U.P. Plot No.64, Vaibhav Housing Soc., Ujalaiwadi, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aabfb4721A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condonation under section 5: 5 The party seeking relief has to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal, etc., within the prescribed time. The explanation has to cover the entire period of delay

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condone delay under sub-section (5) to section 253 is neither automatic nor to be exercised in vaccum. The condition

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act providing for condonation of delay is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act”. “41. The question

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

condone the delay if the litigant satisfies the Court that there were sufficient reasons for availing the remedy after expiry of the limitation. Such reasoning should be to the satisfaction of the Court. The expression “sufficient cause or reason” as provided in sub-section (5

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

delay resulting from official Digitally Signed ITA 401/2023 Page 7 of 15 pages procedures should normally be condoned. This court rejected the argument, placing reliance on the judgment in the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra) and observed that although the provisions under Section 5

CIT vs. MOUNTAIN TOUCH BUILDERS P. LTD

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act providing for condonation of delay is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act”. OMP No.388/2012

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

condone the delays if „sufficient cause‟ is shown by the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guiding principles in Ram Lal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd AIR 1962 H.C. 361 wherein, it is held that in construing section 5

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be un-condonable

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The genesis for such provisions can be traced to section 5

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The genesis for such provisions can be traced to section 5

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The genesis for such provisions can be traced to section 5