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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1 vs. M/S BURDA DRUCK INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

delay is condoned. 3. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:11.12.2023 11:50:53 Signature Not Verified ITA No.660/2023 Page 2 of 6 ITA 660/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 5. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 05.12.2022 [stamped on 04.01.2023] passed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1 vs. M/S BURDA DRUCK INDIA PVT. LTD.

delay is condoned. 3. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:11.12.2023 11:50:53 Signature Not Verified ITA No.660/2023 Page 2 of 6 ITA 660/2023 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 5. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order dated 05.12.2022 [stamped on 04.01.2023] passed

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

CONPLEX TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

79,316/- on turnover of Rs. 6,48,65,701/- and that the P&L account is debited by the expenses being cost of materials consumed (Rs. 6,37,86,386/-); employee benefits (Rs. 58,97,807/-); finance cost (Rs. 3,99,067/-); depreciation and amortisation expense (Rs. 55,184/-) and other expenses

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

DEVENDER KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed under section 250(6) of the Act by Learned Commissioner of Income

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

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

79,982/- on account of bogus expenses. Penalty proceedings stood initiated under section 271AAC of the Act for additions made under section 69 and 69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 270A was levied

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD UNN,SHAMLI vs. AO NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

79,982/- on account of bogus expenses. Penalty proceedings stood initiated under section 271AAC of the Act for additions made under section 69 and 69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 270A was levied

KRISHNA GOPAL SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 28, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

79,982/- on account of bogus expenses. Penalty proceedings stood initiated under section 271AAC of the Act for additions made under section 69 and 69A of the Act and under section 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 270A was levied

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 DELHI vs. QUALCOMM INDIA PVT LTD

79 days. 3. Ms Ananya Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she would have no objection if the prayer Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:30.10.2023 17:06:39 Signature Not Verified ITA 586/2023 Page 2 of 8 made in the application is allowed. 3.1 It is ordered accordingly. 4. Consequently, the delay is condoned

JAGDISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), JHANDEWALAN

79,592/- earned as exempt LTCG under Section 10(38) on sale\nof shares of penny stock which was added as unexplained cash credit\nunder Section 68 of the Act; the balance amount of Rs.9,81,41,192/- was\nfurther added under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained\ncash credit in the hands of the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts in brief qua the issue of disallowance of depreciation on windmill are that the assessee company has installed a Wind Mill Turbine at Kutch (Gujarat) at a cost

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts in brief qua the issue of disallowance of depreciation on windmill are that the assessee company has installed a Wind Mill Turbine at Kutch (Gujarat) at a cost

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos. 2702, 2703, 2710/Del/2013 Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10

condone the delay in filing of cross objections as there were bonafide reasons. 34. Depreciation on wind mill Rs. 28,79,999/-; The facts in brief qua the issue of disallowance of depreciation on windmill are that the assessee company has installed a Wind Mill Turbine at Kutch (Gujarat) at a cost