NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY FEDERATION OF INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmannational Solar Energy Federation Of India, Vs. Cit (Exemption), 135 – 137, Rectangle 1, D 4, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. (Pan : Aabtn8293P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Pahwa, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 13.05.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (E)] Dated 18.12.2024 For Assessment Year 2023-24 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Rejection Order Dated 12.12.2024 Was Passed Without Providing Adequate Time For Compliance With The Notice Dated 06.12,2024. The Appellant Acted Promptly Upon Becoming Aware Of The Notice & Filed A Request For An Extension On The Very Same Day 12.12.2024. The Rejection Order Passed Thereafter Disregarded The Appellant'S Timely Request. This Action Is Arbitrary & Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice. The Appellant Had Duly Responded To Previous Notices Dated 04.07.2024, 13.09.2024 & 18.11.2024, Furnishing The Required

iv) for Assessment Years 2023-24 to 2015-26 be restored. 3. That the application in Form 10AB be considered for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii). Judicial precedents support the view that technical or procedural lapses should not outweigh the substantive merits of a case. The rejection order disregards this principle. Accordingly, since the delay in responding

SHAKUNTLAM BAL VIKAS SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMP 2(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2022-23

section 5 139(1) and the assessee has failed to do so. Further, as per the CBDT’s circular No. 16/2022, the appellant was required to file condonation of delay in this regard before the concern Commissioner of Income-tax. After filing of condonation of delay and getting order from the concern Commissioner of Income-tax, the appellant may file

SHRI YOG NIROGDHAM DHARMATH TRUST, GURUGRAM,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

iv) Now, the appeal is being prepared and is being filed on 10.04 2025 3 In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay on filing was due to circumstances stated above which were beyond the control of the appellant and there was no intention or willful delay on the part of the appellant. 4 Reliance

SHRI YOG NIROGDHAM DHARMATH TRUST,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

iv) Now, the appeal is being prepared and is being filed on 10.04 2025 3 In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay on filing was due to circumstances stated above which were beyond the control of the appellant and there was no intention or willful delay on the part of the appellant. 4 Reliance

SWAVALAMBAN AVAM SWABHIMAAN FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 11 days in filing these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of rejection dated 10.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(E), stated that registration was denied to the assessee u/s.12A on the ground that certain details were not furnished by the assessee

SWAVALAMBAN AVAM SWABHIMAAN FOUNDATION ,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay of 11 days in filing these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order of rejection dated 10.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(E), stated that registration was denied to the assessee u/s.12A on the ground that certain details were not furnished by the assessee

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA