RIVEN HEALTH CLUB PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

delay is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961 on account

GERANIUM BAKERS PRIVATE LMITED,BALLABHGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 People Care Hospitals Private Vs Ito Limited, Plot No.1066, Baba Ward- 2 (1) Nagar, Near Janta Barat Ghar, Faridabad Old Faridabad, Haryana 121002 Pan No.Aagcp8745G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Geranium Barkers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 103/B, Near Shyamji Mandir Ward-1 (3) Malerna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Faridabad Ballabgarh Haryana -122004 Pan No.Aafcg3396P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Riven Health Club Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ff-9, Vishnu Place Near Ward- 2 (2) Neelam Flyover Sector-20B Faridabad Faridabad Haryana121001 Pan No. Aagcr1343A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Sh. Dishant Sethi, Advocate

delay is condoned. The appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 3 1961 on account

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

VII) The power of the Court to extend the time under sub-section (4) may be exercised on an application by any of the parties. Once such an application for extension of time is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of such application under sub-section (9). The Court shall endeavour to dispose of such

DEVESH CINEMAS,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 6. Brief facts of the case are that, return declaring income of Rs. 5,95,220/- was e-filed by the assessee on 13/09/2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

DAYALU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 6. Brief facts of the case are that, return declaring income of Rs. 5,95,220/- was e-filed by the assessee on 13/09/2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

DAYALU IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(2), FARIDABAD

In the result, I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.T.A. No. 6173/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) 6. Brief facts of the case are that, return declaring income of Rs. 5,95,220/- was e-filed by the assessee on 13/09/2015 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

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

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

vii) There was a close nexus between the voluntary contributions and expenditure on political activity of a political party. This was because the expenditure on political activity is incurred from the voluntary contributions and the position of a political party was akin to the carrying out of the aims and objectives of a Trust. (viii) But for Section

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

vii) There was a close nexus between the voluntary contributions and expenditure on political activity of a political party. This was because the expenditure on political activity is incurred from the voluntary contributions and the position of a political party was akin to the carrying out of the aims and objectives of a Trust. (viii) But for Section

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

vii) There was a close nexus between the voluntary contributions and expenditure on political activity of a political party. This was because the expenditure on political activity is incurred from the voluntary contributions and the position of a political party was akin to the carrying out of the aims and objectives of a Trust. (viii) But for Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

ZHILMIL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Asstt. Year: 2015-16

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Jhilmil Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income for assessment year 2015-16 declaring an income of Rs. 1,89,480/-, the case was selected for scrutiny, the assessment proceedings have been initiated against 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

vii) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Settlement Commission under Section 245-C and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section

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

vii) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Settlement Commission under Section 245-C and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section

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

vii) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Settlement Commission under Section 245-C and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section

PUNYAH BUILDING MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the assessee case are that, the assessee filed return declared income of RS. 2,74,730/- which has been processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued. The case

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

M/S. APPOLO TRAEXIM (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No.2 as raised by the assessee is allowed and consequently all other grounds raised by the assessee have become academic, hence declared as infructuous

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L. P. Sahu

delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 9. For better understanding of the facts and the issues involved, we are taking up the appeal for assessment year 2003- 04 and it has been stated by the parties that the finding given in this year will apply

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

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing