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

c), which gives the right to the assessee for claiming the deductions bona fidely. So going through the above facts and case laws, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the department may please be dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, precisely reiterating the above written submissions, submitted that the assessee company is claiming deduction u/s 80IA

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

c), which gives the right to the assessee for claiming the deductions bona fidely. So going through the above facts and case laws, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the department may please be dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, precisely reiterating the above written submissions, submitted that the assessee company is claiming deduction u/s 80IA

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

c), which gives the right to the assessee for claiming the deductions bona fidely. So going through the above facts and case laws, it is humbly prayed that the appeal of the department may please be dismissed.” 5. The ld. Counsel of the assessee, precisely reiterating the above written submissions, submitted that the assessee company is claiming deduction u/s 80IA

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”).

2) The turnover of the company has also increased from 2.87 Crores in 2005-06 to 11.91 Crores in 2011- 12 due to Joint efforts of all its management, employees and all other related persons. 3) During the year under consideration also the assessee got all its accounts audited before the due date. The final Computation of Income was also

ALLIED FINANCE P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2015-16 Co-Operative Cane Vs. Income Tax Officer, Development Union Ltd., Ward-1(2), Cane Union, Hapur, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaajc0224M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2012-13

c) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. In view of larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), following delay(s) in filing the respective appeals are condoned

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), GURGAON, GURUGRAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

delay in filing the appeals in all the three years is condoned. 5. The facts and issue raised in all the three appeals are arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, common order is passed in all the three appeals. Page 4 of 10 6. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals are decided ex-parte

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.

80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition of Rs. 23,79,982/- 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

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.

80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition of Rs. 23,79,982/- 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

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.

80P of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,28,94,829/- and addition of Rs. 23,79,982/- 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

SHREE BANKEY BIHARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him the same is reproduced below:

C.” 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has filed its return of income and Form 10B in delay. He submitted that the assessee has not finalized its account and he relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 8. In rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that return of income was filed

M/S. LMS TYRE COMPANY,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shrir.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Lms Tyre Company, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Sunil Suresh & Associates, Circle-2, Cas, B-20/21, Fruit Garden, Nit-5, Gurgaon Faridabad Pan: Aadfl4094L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(Mumbai Tribunal). 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order the Assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. For claiming the deduction u/s 80IC/80IC the Assessee was supposed to file its return of income within the stipulated period i.e. 30.11.2013 however, the same was filed on dated 26.02.2014 and therefore