PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.

delay of 123 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 469/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1 dated 13 October 2023 on a Miscellaneous Application which had been filed by the respondent-assessee. 2. We note that while disposing of the appeal in original

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DCIT, HISAR vs. M/S SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,, HISAR

In the result, all the five captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion ITA Nos.5701-5704/Del/2016 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, HISAR vs. SYNERGY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, HISAR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

condone the delay in filing the return as the assessee has completed all the formalities for filing the return & it was just omitted to be uploaded by the assessee’s counsel due to some technical error/confusion. 12. The ld.CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by observing that the contentions of the appellant that it was prevented by sufficient

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

80; Nareshwer vs. Chabildas AIR 1934 Nag 52; and in Ma Sein vs. S.T.R.M. Tian AIR 1933 Rang 96, a pleader’s gross carelessness affords no ground for condonation. It is well settled, that a legal adviser’s mistake in order to justify condonation of delay, must be a bona fide mistake; for which reference may be made to Amritlal

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

section 80G was not within the knowledge of the governing body of the society, that it was only after being cornered that the assessee came forward in February, 2006 to file the returns and in these circumstances the assessee‟s explanation for the inordinate delay cannot be accepted. The DIT (Exemptions) further observed that it was part of the duty

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

section 80G was not within the knowledge of the governing body of the society, that it was only after being cornered that the assessee came forward in February, 2006 to file the returns and in these circumstances the assessee‟s explanation for the inordinate delay cannot be accepted. The DIT (Exemptions) further observed that it was part of the duty

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

section 80G was not within the knowledge of the governing body of the society, that it was only after being cornered that the assessee came forward in February, 2006 to file the returns and in these circumstances the assessee‟s explanation for the inordinate delay cannot be accepted. The DIT (Exemptions) further observed that it was part of the duty

LOGICS POWERAMR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Logics Poweramr Private Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Limited Tax, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 7, Sarswati Bhawan 1/4 Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar 48/1, 48/2, East Delhi Laxmi Nagar Beratenaagrahara Begur, Delhi-110092 Hosur Rd. Uttarahalli Hobli, Pan No.Aadcl3204D Bangalore-560100 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80 IA deduction in issue reading as under: "6. Considering the submissions made by the appellant in connection with the delay in filing of appeal, the delay is condoned and the appeal is decided on the merits as follows. The appellant has filed an appeal on account of disallowance u/s 80 IA while processing

ERADICATUS INFECTUS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee-company was incorporated on 04. 12. 2019 to carry on the business of Healthcare & Lifesciences Industry & Medical Devices/ Bio Medical Sector. After incorporation, the assessee company started the business of Biomedical and Medical Devices and producing Covid Testing Kits and has duly

FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF MICRO ENTERPRISES,GURUGRAM vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhvs. Cit(Exemptions), Foundation For Advancement Of Micro Chandigarh Enterprises, Unit No. 701 To 711, 7Th Floor, Unitech Commercial, Tower 2, Sector-45, Gurugram, Haryana- 122003 Pan :Aadcf6999F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh Wadhwa, Fca Department By Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr

80 G (5)(iii) dated 30.09.2023 deserves to be rejected. In this connection, it was specifically contended by the Ld. AR that such rejection was made earlier by the CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh on 25.05.2023 simply on the ground of limitation and he has drawn our attention to page 26 of the compilation wherein para 13 of the said order dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

80-JB of the Act @ 100% of profit of the unit at Duliajan amounting to Rs.5,59,59,323 as against no deduction claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) / assessing officer ought to have allowed credit