SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara\Nand\Nshri Brajesh Kumar Singh\Nita Nos.1808/Del/2023 & 2983, 2984 & 2985/Del/2015\N[Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08]\Nshri Chetan Seth,\Nplot No.14, Lcs, Sector-B-1,\Nvasant Kunj,\Nnew Delhi-110070\Npan-Aolps2992A\Nappellant\Nincome Tax Officer,\Nward-15(3),\Nvs New Delhi\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nshri Arun Kishore, Ca &\Nshri Alok Suri, Ca\Nshri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.\N(Dr)\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N28.03.2025\N25.06.2025\Norder\Nper Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am,\Nthese Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The\Norder Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Delhi, Dated\N24.02.2015 For Ay 2004-05, 27.02.2015 For Ay 2005-06, 2006-07 And\N2007-08 Respectively Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Passed U/S 147/144\Nof The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘The Act') Dated\N31.10.2011 For All The Above Assessment Years, Respectively. Since, The\Nissues Are Common & Connected, Hence, These Appeals Were Heard\Ntogether & Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.\N2. First, We Shall Take Up The Ita No.1808/Del/2023 Pertaining To Ay\N2004-05.\N2.

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for\nhearing.\n3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023\nfor AY 2004-05 are as under:-\n\"1. 1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not\nholding that the assessment order passed by the assessing\nofficer under section 147/144

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

9. Being aggrieved by the order of revocation dated 03.03.2011, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the Passports Act. The same was rejected by the respondent No. 2 by virtue of the order dated 31.10.2011. The respondent No. 2 (Chief Passport Officer) held:- 1. That the Directorate of Enforcement was an arm of the Government

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. VERSATILE POLYTECH PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed as time barred

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

9 of 19 pages condone delay has been conferred to do substantial justice and the court should adopt a liberal approach and the delay resulting from official procedures should normally be condoned. This court rejected the argument, placing reliance on the judgment in the case of P.K. Ramachandran (supra) and observed that although the provisions under Section 5 Limitation

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

condone the delay and admit the cross objection taken by the assessee for hearing. 6. In the cross objection, the assessee has taken legal issues. We, therefore, have decided to dispose of the cross objection first. 7. Ground No.3 in the cross objection taken by the assessee since not pressed stands dismissed as not pressed. 8. Grounds No.1 & 2 relate

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

2. The proviso to section 139(9) of the Act states that— "Provided that where the assessee rectifies the defect after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days or the further period allowed, but before the assessment is made, the Assessing Officer may 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

2. The proviso to section 139(9) of the Act states that— "Provided that where the assessee rectifies the defect after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days or the further period allowed, but before the assessment is made, the Assessing Officer may condone the delay

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay of 2947 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.1808/Del/2023 for AY 2004-05 are as under:- “1.1. That the CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not holding that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 147/144 of the Income

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

9 of 22 assessee came up with the defence that the responsibility for the alleged forgery of the certificates lay at the doors of A.K. Sikri, which was not an acceptable or reasonable explanation; the assessee was also involved in the forgery and, therefore, its plea for condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

9 of 22 assessee came up with the defence that the responsibility for the alleged forgery of the certificates lay at the doors of A.K. Sikri, which was not an acceptable or reasonable explanation; the assessee was also involved in the forgery and, therefore, its plea for condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions

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

9 of 22 assessee came up with the defence that the responsibility for the alleged forgery of the certificates lay at the doors of A.K. Sikri, which was not an acceptable or reasonable explanation; the assessee was also involved in the forgery and, therefore, its plea for condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. 12. In fine, the DIT (Exemptions

BAGWANT KISHORE MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.” 8. The impugned order exhibits that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal simply due to want of jurisdiction by stating that both he and the Ld. AO not empowered to condone the delay in question. It is established by law that the requirement of filing Audit Report in Form 10B is procedural

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

9,27,48,793 (thereby computing the total income at Rs. 25,12,68,081 (-) Rs.9,27,48,793). Further according to the INC the CIT (A) ought to have considered the additional evidence tendered and no prejudice would have been caused to the Revenue if it had. It was, inter alia, pointed out that the estimate of the receipts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

9,27,48,793 (thereby computing the total income at Rs. 25,12,68,081 (-) Rs.9,27,48,793). Further according to the INC the CIT (A) ought to have considered the additional evidence tendered and no prejudice would have been caused to the Revenue if it had. It was, inter alia, pointed out that the estimate of the receipts

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

9,27,48,793 (thereby computing the total income at Rs. 25,12,68,081 (-) Rs.9,27,48,793). Further according to the INC the CIT (A) ought to have considered the additional evidence tendered and no prejudice would have been caused to the Revenue if it had. It was, inter alia, pointed out that the estimate of the receipts