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

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 is a delay of 3853 days in filing

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

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 is a delay of 3853 days in filing

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

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 is a delay of 3853 days in filing

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

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 is a delay of 3853 days in filing

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

condonation of delay in filing this appeal on\nPage 7 of 24\n\nITA No.- 7392/Del/2017\nM/s NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.\n\n08-12-2017 alongwith affidavit of Additional Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Special Range-6 New Delhi, relevant extract thereof as\nfollows:-\n\n1) That the final assessment order in the case of M/s. NEC\nTechnologies India Private

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

delay in filing Form 10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section

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

delay in filing Form 10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

SH. RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-34(5), DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Shri Raj Kumar Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer, C-243, Sector-3, Dsidc Ward-34(5), Indl. Area Bawana, Vs Delhi. New Delhi-11003. Pan- Aewpk1980K Assessee Revenue

Section 249(3) of the I.T. Act. The appeal is therefore not admitted and proceeded with, and therefore dismissed in limine. However, without any prejudice to the rejection of appellant's condonation of delay plea resulting in appeal being dismissed in limine, appellant's appeal is considered for disposal on facts of case as available on record and keeping

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

7. By bare perusal of impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), observed as under: “7.1 Further, Section 119 empowers the Board to issue orders and guidelines regarding the condonation of delay

SHAFA HOME,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 119(2)(b) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN FILING OF FORM NO. 10 AND FORM NO. 9A FOR AY 2016-17 CIRCULAR NO. 7/2018 [F.NO.197/55/2018-ITA-I], DATED 20-12-2018 Under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') the primary condition for grant of exemption to trust

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (FORMELY) NOW PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,DELHI vs. ACIT LTU-1 KOLKATA (UNDER TRANSFER TO CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

7. The reasons for the delay in appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A) have been reproduced in the impugned order in para no. 4.1 as follows :- “4.1 Along with the appeal in Form no. 35, a letter is filed for condonation of delay stating inter-alia as under:- 4 "In the matter of condonation of delay under section

RAJU RANA,PANIPAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PANIPAT

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4477/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Raju Rana, Commissioner Of Income Tax C/O Shyam Lal, 01, Khadi Colony, Vs. (Appeals), Panipat, Haryana. Ward-1, Panipat, Pan No.Ahtpr1448P Haryana. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 29.12.2023. 2. That there has been a delay of 506 days in filing the said appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal against the order issued by CIT(A). The due date for filing the appeal was 27.02.2024, however, the present appeal has been

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

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

7) SCC 123,\n1998 (6) JT 242, 1998 (5) SCALE 105], it was averred/held, as\nfollows, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:\n\".... 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of\ndiscretion of the court. Section

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

7) SCC 123,\n1998 (6) JT 242, 1998 (5) SCALE 105], it was averred/held, as\nfollows, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:\n".... 9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of\ndiscretion of the court. Section

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

7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs K S P Shanmugavel Nadar reported in 30 taxman

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

7 SCC 123 (SC) – delay of 883 days condoned c) Decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishan Meghani reported in 398 ITR 250 (Bom) – delay of 2984 days condoned d) Decision of Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs K S P Shanmugavel Nadar reported in 30 taxman

SRD MANAGEMENT COMPANY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Srd Management Company, Vs Dcit, 304, 3Rd Floor, 44 Deenar Circle-22(2), Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aamcs3799K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Bawa Kanwarjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023

7 [Whether the appellant has proved that he was diligent and was not guilty of negligence?] In the case of Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. [2006) 98 ITD 200, Hon'ble ITAT Chennai held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay, appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been 'diligence on part of appellant and it was not guilty