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

condoning the delay. 24. On the question of perversity of the decision of the Tribunal we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, (1957) 31 ITR 28. In that judgment, it was noted that only a question of law can be referred for decision of the Court and the decision

B.B. NIGADE AND SONS AND UMA CONSTRUCTIONS JV,KOLHAPUR vs. TDS GHAZIABAD, TDS CPC GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4435/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम B.B.Nigade & Sons & Uma Tds, Cpc Aaykar Bhawan, Constructions Jv, Vs. Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, H.No.157A Nirmitee Bungalow, U.P. Plot No.64, Vaibhav Housing Soc., Ujalaiwadi, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Pan No.Aabfb4721A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

83 (Kolkata Tribunal) would help us with the following relevant finding for deciding the case in hand: “3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the law of limitation being substantive, the power of discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judiciously and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The parties

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

A2Z WASTE MANAGEMENT (BADAUN) LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are all dismissed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4441 To 4445/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम A2Z Waste Management (Badaun) Ltd. Deputy/Assistant O-116, 1St Floor, Dlf Shopping Mall, Vs. Commisioner Of Income Tax Arjun Marg, Dlf City Phase-1, (Tds), Dlf Qe S.O. Gurgaon, Haryana, India. Cpc, Aayakar Bhawan, Pan No.Rtka06546B Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 249(3) of the Act. At this stage the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be extracted: - “5.2 In the case of appellant, there is delay of 2529 days in filing the appeal. In Form No.35/condonation petition, appellant mentioned the reason for delay in filing the appeal stating that it was not aware about passing intimation

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi assumed u/s 263 of the 7 Uday Kumar Vaish Act. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 9. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act as the order of Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue apart from that there exist

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PURE DEPARTMENTAL STORE PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

delay\nis condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.\n5. Heard both parties and perused the material available on\nrecord. In the instant appeal filed by the Revenue is having total tax\neffect of INR 69,64,821/- on the additions challenged before us of\nINR 90,15,950/-. The AO made addition of INR 83,59,950/- u/s\n69C

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

SANJAY KUMAR KESHARY,GURGAON vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. G. C. Gupta, Hon’Ble & Sh. O.P.Kant

condone the delay of 277 days in filing the present appeal. 4 ITA No.1491/Del./2011 5. The effective ground of appeal of the assessee is that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in invoking provisions of section 263 on the alleged ground that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condone delay can reswll itt ct nret'tlorrrtr,t,t nrollar bemg lhr-ovtn out at lhe very threshold ancl cquse of fuslict: h<:trtg defeated. As agamst this, when delalt rs corrdorted, the highe.rl lhcrl t'trrr happen is that a cause would be deurJe.cl ott ntct'Il.r crfler lteut'tng lha parttes. 3. "Every day'5 5ls7t, nrusl

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condone delay can reswll itt ct nret'tlorrrtr,t,t nrollar bemg lhr-ovtn out at lhe very threshold ancl cquse of fuslict: h<:trtg defeated. As agamst this, when delalt rs corrdorted, the highe.rl lhcrl t'trrr happen is that a cause would be deurJe.cl ott ntct'Il.r crfler lteut'tng lha parttes. 3. "Every day'5 5ls7t, nrusl

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condone delay can reswll itt ct nret'tlorrrtr,t,t nrollar bemg lhr-ovtn out at lhe very threshold ancl cquse of fuslict: h<:trtg defeated. As agamst this, when delalt rs corrdorted, the highe.rl lhcrl t'trrr happen is that a cause would be deurJe.cl ott ntct'Il.r crfler lteut'tng lha parttes. 3. "Every day'5 5ls7t, nrusl

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

condone delay can reswll itt ct nret'tlorrrtr,t,t nrollar bemg lhr-ovtn out at lhe very threshold ancl cquse of fuslict: h<:trtg defeated. As agamst this, when delalt rs corrdorted, the highe.rl lhcrl t'trrr happen is that a cause would be deurJe.cl ott ntct'Il.r crfler lteut'tng lha parttes. 3. "Every day'5 5ls7t, nrusl

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condone delay can reswll itt ct nret'tlorrrtr,t,t nrollar bemg lhr-ovtn out at lhe very threshold ancl cquse of fuslict: h<:trtg defeated. As agamst this, when delalt rs corrdorted, the highe.rl lhcrl t'trrr happen is that a cause would be deurJe.cl ott ntct'Il.r crfler lteut'tng lha parttes. 3. "Every day'5 5ls7t, nrusl

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

condone delay can reswll itt ct nret'tlorrrtr,t,t nrollar bemg lhr-ovtn out at lhe very threshold ancl cquse of fuslict: h<:trtg defeated. As agamst this, when delalt rs corrdorted, the highe.rl lhcrl t'trrr happen is that a cause would be deurJe.cl ott ntct'Il.r crfler lteut'tng lha parttes. 3. "Every day'5 5ls7t, nrusl