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

sections 12A and 80G and that the DIT (Exemptions) ought to have condoned the delay and accorded registration. 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 6

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

sections 12A and 80G and that the DIT (Exemptions) ought to have condoned the delay and accorded registration. 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 6

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 appeal; the mistake must be such as may be made by a professional Page 10 of 22 ITA No.-7042/Del/2014. Boutique Hotels India (P) Ltd. lawyer well-versed and experienced in law. If an assessee is genuinely aggrieved by an order referred to in Section 253(1) of I.T. Act, and wishes

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

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards

CIT vs. CREATIVE TRAVEL PVT LTD

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

condonation of delay override the general provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the Limitation Act”). The position was reiterated in State of Goa Vs. Western Builders, (2006) FAO(OS)665/2009, 6

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

6. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal has inherent powers under the law to condone such delay in the interest of justice…………” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing none attended on behalf of the assessee

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

6(d) of the synopsis dated 21.07.2014 of the assessee. Therefore, it could not be shown before us that any refusal by COD pertains to Assessment Year 2006-07 or 2007-08. In view of above facts we do not have any hesitation in condoning the delay of 585 and 502 days delay in both these appeals. ACIT, Vs. Container

CIT vs. MOUNTAIN TOUCH BUILDERS P. LTD

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

condonation of delay override the general provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the Limitation Act”). The position was reiterated in State of Goa Vs. Western Builders, (2006) FAO(OS)665/2009, 6

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

6] [In favour of assessee/ matter remanded] II. A1 Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs CIT(E) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

6] [In favour of assessee/ matter remanded] II. A1 Jamia Mohammediyah Education Society vs CIT(E) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 114 (Bombay HC) Section 119, read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Central Board of Direct Taxes- Instructions to subordinate authorities (Condonation of delay

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

6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed condonation of delay. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) were served on the assessee on 08.10.2007. Whereas, the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 25.06.2018. Thus, there

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

6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed condonation of delay. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) were served on the assessee on 08.10.2007. Whereas, the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 25.06.2018. Thus, there

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

6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed condonation of delay. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) were served on the assessee on 08.10.2007. Whereas, the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 25.06.2018. Thus, there

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

6. Learned Departmental Representative strongly opposed condonation of delay. 7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) were served on the assessee on 08.10.2007. Whereas, the appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 25.06.2018. Thus, there

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

section 253(3A) of the Act, the\nlimitation for filing appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal expire\non 21.02.2015 and therefore, the present accompanying\nappeal is delayed by 1021 days.\n\n4) The matter regarding filing of appeal in the impugned case\nfor AY 2010-11 got missed due to the reason for this omission\nare as follows:-oversight which

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

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 uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay

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

section 5. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. The discretion conferred on the Court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised to advance substantial justice. No liberal view should be taken merely because the defaulting party is a Government. Even if there was a strong case

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

section 5. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. The discretion conferred on the Court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised to advance substantial justice. No liberal view should be taken merely because the defaulting party is a Government. Even if there was a strong case