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

condoning the delay of 1537 days without any reasonable\ncause?\nThe facts of the cases are that the assessee is a public limited company\nengaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery. It has\nfiled his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.11.2015\ndeclaring total income at ₹4,22,28,69,410/-under the normal

PRAMOD MITTAL

delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. 2012:DHC:895-DB ITA 66/2012 Page 2 of 7 ITA 66/2012 This appeal by Pramod Mittal impugns order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short). The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2005-06. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-assessee

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND (ICID PF TRUST),NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

condonation of delay for filing revised ITRs with rider that the assessee’s refund claim cannot be entertained after 6 years. In such a situation where the Revenue is not considering overall facts of the case and decide the matter on merit, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We further

M/S. SAMSUNG HEAVY INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 10. Ground number 1 of the appeal is general in nature and no spectator arguments were advanced before us and hence same is dismissed. 11. Ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is against the existence of permanent establishment. On the issue of taxability of offshore supply and disallowance

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

UTHTHAAN,GURGAON vs. CIRCLE1(1) GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

Section 143(1)\ndated 31.01.2020, wherein the CPC has erroneously computed the\naggregate income at Rs.74,30,397/-, raising a tax liability at Rs.\n31,78,741/-, which is beyond jurisdiction and bad in law.\n\n2 That the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without\nadjudicating the grounds on merits, solely on the basis of delay,\ndenying

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

ANKUSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyita No. 186 /Del/ 2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Ankush Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward-40 (1) H-4 & 5/88, Suvidha Kunj, Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi 110034 Pan :Aetpg 8736Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/3/2021 Date Of Order : 24/3/2021

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by making an addition of Rs. 14, 78, 275/-on account of the peak credit, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed ex parte by order dated 23/6/2014 and enhanced the addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELCO INDIA PVT. LTD.

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

delay in filing and in re filing the appeals is condoned. 2. ,The applications stand disposed of. ITA 116/2016 ITA 917/2015 ITA 74/2016 3. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 16 : June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELCO INDIA PVT. LTD

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

delay in filing and in re filing the appeals is condoned. 2. ,The applications stand disposed of. ITA 116/2016 ITA 917/2015 ITA 74/2016 3. These appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the 'Act') against a common order dated 16 : June, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

78,16,290.00 By Sales 1,42,992.11 34,60,30,917.00 To Purchases/ Manufacturing 1,56,897.79 30,89,34,808.68 By Closing Stock 17,214.91 2,06,50,446.24 To Finishing Charges 91,60,604.00 To Washing Charges 80,73,560.00 To Weaving Charges 1,83,66,510.00 To Gross Profits 1,43,29,590.56 Total

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

78 (Pune-Trib.) and decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Meghna Gupta vs ACIT[2018] 99 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi Trib.). Further, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal have consistently taken similar view in the case of M/s Samikaran Learning Private Ltd. vs TDS Officer (Supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Udit Jain

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

78 (Pune-Trib.) and decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Meghna Gupta vs ACIT[2018] 99 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi Trib.). Further, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal have consistently taken similar view in the case of M/s Samikaran Learning Private Ltd. vs TDS Officer (Supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Udit Jain

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

78 (Pune-Trib.) and decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Meghna Gupta vs ACIT[2018] 99 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi Trib.). Further, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal have consistently taken similar view in the case of M/s Samikaran Learning Private Ltd. vs TDS Officer (Supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Udit Jain

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of different assesses are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am [Through Video Conferencing]

78 (Pune-Trib.) and decision of the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Meghna Gupta vs ACIT[2018] 99 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi Trib.). Further, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal have consistently taken similar view in the case of M/s Samikaran Learning Private Ltd. vs TDS Officer (Supra). The relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Udit Jain