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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDELHI-08 vs. M/S S. CHAND & CO. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

90 days allowed to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 7. The delay, if any, that occasioned in filing the accompanying appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate on the part of the Appellant/Plaintiff but for the aforesaid bonafide reasons also due to decision making hierarchy and its absence for taking effective decision qua the present appeal

SANJEEV MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicialmember Sa No.49/Del./2024 (In Ita No.353/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2019-20) & Sanjeev Mehta Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), G-1, Vishwa Apartment, New Delhi. 3, Shankaracharya Marg, Civil Lines, New Delhi – 110 054. (Pan: Aaapm5622L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Order : 13.09.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)’)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2 Since We Have Disposed Off The Appeal In The Instant Case By This Order, The Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Has Become Infructuous, Hence Dismissed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual filed its return of income and while processing the return of income under section 143(1) of the Act claimed tax relief on the income earned outside India and assessee has submitted details of income earned outside India

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VISHU IMPEX PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

condonation of delay in filing the appeals are hereby allowed. Application of the assessee for admission of additional ground in both the cross objections 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on the admission of additional ground sought to be raised by the assessee in both the cross objections and also perused the relevant material on record

DOLPHIN SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(2), DELHI

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2611/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S Dolphin Softech Pvt. Ltd., Acit, B-155, Rear Portion, Sector-63, Vs. Circle-7(2), Noida, Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaccd5817H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 147 for the AY 2011-12, the re-assessment order passed by the AO on 07.12.2018. In response to the same, the applicant filed the appeal before CIT(A) and the chartered accountant was also appointed to represent the matter. The assessee forwarded all the notices received from the Department to the CA. However, he sought adjournments on various

DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CANON INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay is therefore is condoned. The solitary ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection read as under: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent should be allowed interest u/s 244A of the Act on refund and while computing such interest, the foreign tax credit should be kept

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD,GURUGRAM vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay is therefore is condoned. The solitary ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection read as under: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Respondent should be allowed interest u/s 244A of the Act on refund and while computing such interest, the foreign tax credit should be kept

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S STELLAR CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Vs. M/S. Stellar Capital Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd., 325, Vardhman Grand Plaza, Mangalam Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacs3356A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the assessment was finally completed at an assessed income of Rs. 90,93,313/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) along with the request for condonation of delay

MANAV MALIK,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(2)(2), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs Acit, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Apzpm1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

condoned. Prior to amendment to Rule 128(9) provided that Form 67 shall be furnished on or befoe the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) considered amendment in the Rule to be retrospective with a specific anterior date effective from 01.04.2022, the pre-amended sub-rule

GOODVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE NOIDA, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 09/10/2013 on the premises of the assessee comprising Shubhkamna

HILLVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. A search & seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 09/10/2013 on the premises of the assessee comprising Shubhkamna

DIVESH VERMA,BENGALURU vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Divesh Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-804, Veracious Vani Vilas Ward-1(1), Apartments, Doddaballapur Faridabad Main Road, Yelahanka, (Haryana) Bengalure-560064, Karnataka Pan: Aehpv6594H (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 90 of the Act read with CBDT Circular No. 333 dated 2nd April, 1982. The relief claimed was denied and TDS credit was not allowed in full as reflected in Form 26AS by then Ld. AO vide order dated 04.01.2020. 3. Against order dated 04.01.2020 of Ld. Assessing Officer, the appellant/assessee filed application for condonation of delay

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

NAVEEN CHANDRA BHATT,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-71(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2018-19

90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

VEG 'N' TABLE,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- INT. TAX 3(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 . Veg ‘N’ Table, Vs. Dcit, 801, Tower-A 1, Circle- International Tax - Ansal Corporate Park, 3(1)(1), Sector-142, Delhi Noida Pan :Aagcv2131A (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 4. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to taxability of long-term capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee under Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). 5. Briefly the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee