PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in filing of appeals before us and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 242/Del/2024 :- ―1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (herein after referred to as "the CIT(A)") dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee company

PME POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

condone the delay in filing of appeals before us and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 242/Del/2024 :- ―1. That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (herein after referred to as "the CIT(A)") dated 03.04.2017 dismissing the appeal of the assessee company

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD NO. ONE, PANIPAT HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

NARESH KUMAR,SHANTI NAGAR, MODEL TOWN, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD ONE, PANIPAT, HARYANA, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condoned along with the delay of 33 days in filing both the appeals before us and we admit both the appeals for adjudication. 6. First, we take up ITA No.- 3654/Del/2025. (Assessment Year- 2021-22) 6.1 In this case as per the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 17.12.2022, following two adjustments were made ITA Nos- 3654 & 3656/Del/2025

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

85,622/-. The solitary addition in the said assessment order was of Rs.1,92,26,836/- for variation in respect of cess disallowance. 3. The appellant was under bonafide belief that since the assessment proceeding has already been started, all claims and contentions would be examined during the course of assessment proceeding for the impugned year and thus

M/S. VALLEY IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2011-12

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. If any. B. That under the facts and circumstances. there existed a reasonable cause and justifiable reasons for not depositing the self' - asstt. Tax within the time prescribed u/s 249 (4). hence. the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee failed in proving that there was a serious financial crunch

HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

85,51,587/- under section 115JB of the Act. The ITR was processed under section 143(1) of the Act after making disallowances of Rs.1,56,91,356/- on account of bonus to employees and Rs.19,53,400/- on account of provision for gratuity were made under section 43B and 40A(7) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed rectification

MOHD. JAWED,BIJNOR vs. ITO WARD - 3(3), BIJNOR

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

section 271(l)(c) are not applicable. 3. That this vary fact was ignored by the learned CIT(Appeal), that penalty was imposed on the basis of estimate of income and so the estimated profit @8%. Income assessed was based on estimate basis. As Assessee’s profit was Rs. 158520/-. against Rs. 430010/- declared. In the order of assessment

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed all the three appeals of the assessee

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed all the three appeals of the assessee

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

85,200/- 20.6% 2,02,951/- 2,02,951/- 2005-06 48,17,400/- 20.6% 9,92,385/- 9,92,385/- Total 60,00,000/- 12,36,000/- 12,36,000/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed all the three appeals of the assessee

ANKUSH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyita No. 186 /Del/ 2021 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Ankush Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward-40 (1) H-4 & 5/88, Suvidha Kunj, Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi 110034 Pan :Aetpg 8736Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By: Sh. Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24/3/2021 Date Of Order : 24/3/2021

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by making an addition of Rs. 14, 78, 275/-on account of the peak credit, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed ex parte by order dated 23/6/2014 and enhanced the addition to Rs. 33, 85

DILESHWAR NATH,DELHI vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI, RANGE CODE- 73, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

85,556/- and the same was assessed u/s 143(1) on 11-12-2020 at the income of Rs.66,52,618/- wherein the CPC made the ITA Nos. 74 & 75/Del/2025 disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

DILESHWAR NATH,NEW DELHI vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI, RANGE CODE- 73, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

85,556/- and the same was assessed u/s 143(1) on 11-12-2020 at the income of Rs.66,52,618/- wherein the CPC made the ITA Nos. 74 & 75/Del/2025 disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

DINESH JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

85,556/- and the same was assessed u/s 143(1) on 11-12-2020 at the income of Rs.66,52,618/- wherein the CPC made the ITA Nos. 74 & 75/Del/2025 disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Against this order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT

SURESH CHAND,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

condoning the delay as the reason for the same has been explained in the petition filed along with Form-35. 4.That, Ld. CIT(A) erred on both in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and that too without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. That, Ld. CIT(A) erred

LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandralokesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Ito H. No. 314, Banwari Vatika Ward-1(2)(4) Gupta Colony, Near Transprot Nagar Mart, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Avppk1128H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Bhimanshu Kansal, Adv Revenue By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Ld.

condone the delay of 869 days in filing the present Appeal by imposing cost of Rs. 5000/- which shall be paid to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF). 6. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed on 31/12/2019 under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making

REFRESHMENT PRODUCT SERVICE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Refreshment Product Vs. Acit Service India Private Circle – 19 (1) Limited, B-91, Mayapuri New Delhi Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan No.Aagcr4112D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sachit Jolly, Advocate Sh. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Advocate Sh. Aditya Rathore, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/08/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

85,169/-being Payment of Gratuity inadvertently skipped to be claimed by the Appellant Company in its return of income and that the said amount was already disallowed at the time of making the Provision for Gratuity as per the provisions of Sec 40A(7) of the Act in the 3 previous year(s) This results in taxing the same