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

sections 12A and 80G and that the DIT (Exemptions) ought to have condoned the delay and accorded registration. 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 6 of 22 9

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

sections 12A and 80G and that the DIT (Exemptions) ought to have condoned the delay and accorded registration. 2012:DHC:7652-DB ITA Nos.754/2010, 773/2010, 775/2010, 1092/2010, 1101/2010, 1103/2010, 1104/2010, 1112/2010 & 1124/2010 Page 6 of 22 9

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

section 139(9) of the Act is condoned by the AD. Therefore, to regularize proceedings in scrutiny cases where assessee has already removed the defects as specified u/s 139(9), in such cases under scrutiny, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), AD shall condone the delay

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

section 139(9) of the Act is condoned by the AD. Therefore, to regularize proceedings in scrutiny cases where assessee has already removed the defects as specified u/s 139(9), in such cases under scrutiny, before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3), AD shall condone the delay

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. LAKSHYA CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

Section 5 Limitation Act have to receive liberal construction, but the court cannot ignore the fact that where an appeal gets barred by time, a definite right accrues to the opposite party and such right should not be taken away in a routine manner without disclosure of good and a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.8 As regards

M/S. BOUTIQUE HOTELS INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of appeal even when there is complete absence of sufficient cause for the delay. We wish to discourage the tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter. The lackadaisical propensity for delay exhibited in a non- challant way needs to be curbed; as in the facts and circumstances of the present case before

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, NEW DELHI vs. NEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed\nas time barred

condoned.", "held": "The tribunal held that the reasons provided by the Revenue for the delay were insufficient and did not demonstrate a \"sufficient cause\" as required by law. The tribunal found the explanations to be casual and lacking in bona fides. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "144C(5)", "40(a)(i)", "9

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

9-2024. The . prescribed time limit for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT expired on 17-11-2024. 3.The C1T(A) NFAC dismissed appeal on the ground of delay by order dated 18-9-2024. Our tax consultant advised to file the application under DTVSV204. We filed application under vivad so 1 vishwas 2024 scheme on 30/01/2025

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 1364/Del/2012 for AY 2007-08 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

9 SCC 94 (2000). 4. The ld Authorised Representative vehemently opposed the condonation petition filed by the revenue. It was stated that registry has intimated to the revenue about the delay however, no condonation application have been filed. He referred to the submission of the ld CIT DR and submitted that authorisation for the Commissioner of Income

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

condonation of delay in the application does not establish sufficient cause in terms with sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act. 9

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaghaziabad Development Authority Vs Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Tax India, Tax, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Ghaziabad. New Delhi. Aaalg0072C

9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S NORTAL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini & Sh.K.N.Charry

condone the delay to permit the Revenue to file the cross objections. 10. Now coming the contentions of the parties on either side, though the assessee has raised many grounds, Ld. AR submitted that the incidental issue has been whether the Assessee had a Permanent Establishment in India under the provisions of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

delay in filing Form 10B to be condoned - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7, 9 and 10] [In favour of assessee] III. Vijay Vishin Meghani vs-DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98 (Bombay HC) Section