DELHI AGROHA VIKAS TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(E) DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Kant

5. The following case laws are relied upon in this regard- (I). Ajmeer Sheriff and co. 375 ITR 15 (Madras High Court), wherein the Tribunal haddeclined to condone delay for reasons that i) allegation regarding ill-health of managing partner and multiple medical complications was bereft of details and every day's delay had not been explained, and ii) even

PADMAWATI SEWA SANSTHA,SNEHA APARTMENT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2024-25 Padmawati Sewa Sanstha Vs. Commissioner Of Income H.No. 14 Johriour Jagamba Tax( Exemption ) Delhi Colony Delhi -110094 Pan No. Aabap2210R (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 3.The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Hon'ble CIT (Exemption), Delhi erred in rejecting the application filed in Form10AB vide order passed under section 10AD on 23.07.2024 along with provisional registration granted under sub clause (iv

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80G of the Act respectively moved by the Appellant/Applicant being a Trust registered under Societies Registration Act has been rejected by ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the prime intent of the applicant is to pursue only medical research which is not covered under the term ‘education’. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has come up before the Tribunal

ARTEMIS EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,GURGAON vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

80G of the Act respectively moved by the Appellant/Applicant being a Trust registered under Societies Registration Act has been rejected by ld. CIT(E) on the ground that the prime intent of the applicant is to pursue only medical research which is not covered under the term ‘education’. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has come up before the Tribunal

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

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: Na M/S Ghaziabad Development Vs. Commissioner Of Income Authority, C/O- M/S Rra Taxindia Tax (Exemption), 5, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, Ashok Marg, Aayakar New Delhi Bhawan, Lucknow (Pan: Aaalg0072C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Smt. Poonam Ahuja, Adv Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Saroha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2015 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejecting The Application U/S 154 Filed By The Assessee That Too Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing. Ii. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Has Erred In Law & On Facts

iv. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order u/s 154 which is bad in law, illegal, beyond jurisdiction, barred by limitation, having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without providing adequate opportunity of hearing

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

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. RITES LTD., GURGAON

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 49 days in filing the present cross objection is hereby condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an 4 ITA No.6447/Del./2017 ITA No.6448/Del./2017 CO No.78/Del.2019 amount of Rs.1,15,21,250/- & Rs.13,21,75,000/- by invoking the provisions contained

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. RITES LTD., GURGAON

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

delay of 49 days in filing the present cross objection is hereby condoned. 5. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed an 4 ITA No.6447/Del./2017 ITA No.6448/Del./2017 CO No.78/Del.2019 amount of Rs.1,15,21,250/- & Rs.13,21,75,000/- by invoking the provisions contained

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

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

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

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

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

M/S DURGA CHARITABLE SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 11(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee 3. The assessee Society is duly registered under Society Registration Act, 1860. The Society has been granted registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 15/6/1995. The Society has also been granted exemption u/s 80G of the Act vide order dated 18/6/2010