EAST END APARTMENTS CGHS LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 60(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

section 69A of the Act. It is therefore, submitted that delay in filing the 6 East and Apartment CGHS Ltd. appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) be condoned and matter be restored to the file of the AO for deciding afresh as denovo. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the assessment order as well

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

SH. JAGDEEP SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, PANIPAT

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

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2009-10

91 taxmann.com 241 (Del.) where it was held that the assessee filed its return after five months and nearly after a period of four years and appealed for condonation of delay in filing the return before the CBDT for the sole reason of illness of auditor. The same cannot be condoned for want of details of illness and proof namely

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

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

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 application under section 154 of the Act well in time. Later after 4 years and 07 months, the assessee filed first appeal against the processing order

GUPTA SUBHASH & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 34(3), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,49,095/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notices

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

HUMBOLDT WEDAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA 3207/Del/2016 stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of KHD Humboldt Wedag International GmbH (Humboldt Austria). The company is primarily engaged in designing, supplying of equipment, supervision of installation, erection and commissioning activities for the cement industry on a turn-key basis (non-civil). The return of income for assessment

SANJEEV KUMAR,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(2), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal.

delay of 295 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and appeal is admitted for consideration and adjudication. 6. On merits, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.18,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of cash deposited towards repayment of home loan being 75% of total cash deposit

M/S PETRONET LNG LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.C. Gupta & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy

section 156 of the Act on assessee on 21.11.2006, despite the fact that, it had not been disputed that no Notice of demand had been served on assessee in Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT respect of the said order of assessment and time to file an appeal commences with the service of notice of demand and no valid appeal could

ACIT CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI vs. SWADESH KUMAR MISHRA, GURGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

91,60,604.00 To Washing Charges 80,73,560.00 To Weaving Charges 1,83,66,510.00 To Gross Profits 1,43,29,590.56 Total 1,60,207.02 36,66,81,363.24 Total 1,60,207.02 36,66,81,363.24 From the above, it can be noticed that the assessee has achieved GP of 0.50% of sales in the Trading Activities

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay admitting the appeal of the assessee and proceed to decide the issue on merits. 08. Facts of case in a narrow compass shows that assessee filed his return of income on 31 August 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 167,09,146 which was subsequently revised on 25th of March 2014 declaring same

CLAAS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :U/S 2001-02

condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 8,10,12,600/-. Regular assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 24.2.2004 at an income of Rs. 8,91,11,357/-. Subsequently, the AO noticed that assessee had claimed and was allowed deduction

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEE ISPAT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted. & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 8. At the first instance, we take up the cross appeals for the assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal read as under: “1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI