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 removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

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 removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of\ndiscretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not\nsay that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is\nwithin a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter;\nacceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes\ndelay of the shortest range

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of\ndiscretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not\nsay that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is\nwithin a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter;\nacceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes\ndelay of the shortest range

SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD

The appeal is dismissed

9 of 24 shall be the same as have been adopted for the purpose of preparing such accounts including profit and loss account and laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions of section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) : Provided further that where the company has adopted or adopts

GSMA LTD,USA vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL TAXATION 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee company was incorporated in the United State of America (USA) and is a tax resident of USA. The assessee has been appointed by Mobile Industry as a sole Global Decimal Administrator (GDA) and is responsible

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RHC HOLDING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.2446/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2017-18) Gsma Ltd., 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 450, Atalanta, Untied State Of America ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaecg-1610-K बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(3)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri P.P Singh, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 06.04.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Issued Defect Memo Stating That The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1076 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The facts of the case in brief as emanating from records are: The assessee company was incorporated in the United State of America (USA) and is a tax resident of USA. The assessee has been appointed by Mobile Industry as a sole Global Decimal Administrator (GDA) and is responsible

ORIENT CRAFT LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

delay in depositing Employees Contribution of PE/ESI and on account of income of house property and thereby the returned income of Rs. 18,10,42,260/- was recomputed at Rs. 30,93,07,020/-. Admittedly, assessee had preferred an appeal 5 1097/Del/2023 against this intimation and the same was withdrawn for which assessee claims. The reason for withdrawal was that

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

9. A perusal of the bare provisions of the section, including the explanation-1 thereto, makes it unambiguously clear that other than reserves created u/s 33AC of the I.T. Act, amounts carried to any other reserve are to be added back for the purpose of computation of book profit as per section 115JB. 10. The judgment in the case

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

9. A perusal of the bare provisions of the section, including the explanation-1 thereto, makes it unambiguously clear that other than reserves created u/s 33AC of the I.T. Act, amounts carried to any other reserve are to be added back for the purpose of computation of book profit as per section 115JB. 10. The judgment in the case

M/S. BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

9. A perusal of the bare provisions of the section, including the explanation-1 thereto, makes it unambiguously clear that other than reserves created u/s 33AC of the I.T. Act, amounts carried to any other reserve are to be added back for the purpose of computation of book profit as per section 115JB. 10. The judgment in the case

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

vii) Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School vs. UOI [2017] 77 taxmann.com 244 (Kerala) viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmann.com 310 (P&H) 10. A harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(1)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2015 and the case

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

vii) Sree Narayana Guru Smaraka Sangam Upper Primary School vs. UOI [2017] 77 taxmann.com 244 (Kerala) viii) Dr. Amrit Lai Mangal vs. UOI [2015] 62 taxmann.com 310 (P&H) 10. A harmonious and conjoint reading of provisions of section 234E & Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2012, Section 271H, section 200 A(1)(c), Memorandum to Finance Bill, 2015 and the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

delay of 28 days in filing the above captioned appeal stands condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 24347/2025(Exemption) 5. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 6. The application stands disposed of. ITA 119/2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

delay of 28 days in filing the above captioned appeal stands condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 24468/2025(Exemption) 5. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 6. The application stands disposed of. ITA 120/2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2 vs. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

delay of 28 days in filing the above captioned appeal stands condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 24474/2025(Exemption) 5. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

condone the delay in filing the appeal\nbefore the Tribunal.\n4.\nGround Nos.1, 9 and 11 are general in nature, hence not adjudicated. At\nthe time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed Ground Nos.2,\n3, 7 & 8, relating to initiation of proceedings u/s 153C and DIN issues\nhence the same are dismissed as not pressed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it on such technicalities. ” 3.6 The Hon‟ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Smt. Usha Satish Salvi vs ACIT Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai in ITA Nos. 4239,4237 & 4238/Mum/2023 dated