DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S YKK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay itself. In view of these discussions, in our considered view, the condonation petition does not deserve to be accepted. We reject the same. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. Having held so, we may also add that even on merits grievance of the Assessing Officer is that “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

YKK INDIA (P) LTD vs. ACIT CICLE-18 (1),

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay itself. In view of these discussions, in our considered view, the condonation petition does not deserve to be accepted. We reject the same. The appeal is dismissed as time barred. Having held so, we may also add that even on merits grievance of the Assessing Officer is that “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

IMPERIAL AUTO INUDSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3927/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) M/S. Imperial Auto Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax Industries Ltd., Centralized Processing Plot No.202, Kushal Cell, Bengaluru Bazar, 32-33, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan: Aaaci 0645 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

92,26,836/- was due to the impugned order under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 23.12.2021 Imperial Auto Industrial Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year :2020-21 where the income was computed under Section 143(1)(a) at Rs.150,75,03,610/- upon making adjustment of Rs.23,23,80,990/- then the assessee found that the correct remedy

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

condoning the delay of 1537 days without any reasonable cause? The facts of the cases are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of jewellery. It has filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 declaring total income at ₹4,22,28,69,410/-under the normal

UNITED BANK OF INDIA (NOW MERGED WITH PNB),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1903/Del/2021, A.Y. 2008-09

condonation of delay. 5. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it can be observed that the assessee is a public sector bank. The present issue has a chequered history as reflected in para no. 2 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) as follows :- “2. Brief Facts of the Case Briefly the facts of the case are that

MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2003-04 Marks Consolidated Vs. Ito, Ward 6(2), Business Ltd., New Delhi 1497, Bhardwaj Bhawan, Wazir Nagar, Kotla , New Delhi (Pan: Aaacm8113H)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, forgo any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. The facts in brief are that the in this case information has been received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi that the assessee has received

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. DLF QUTAB ENCLAVE COMPLEX EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

92 days in filing the appeals i.e., ITA 358/2023 and ITA 360/2023. 2. Ms Kavita Jha, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, does not oppose the prayer made in the above-captioned applications. 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. CM APPL. 34161/2023 in ITA 358/2023 & CM APPL. 34169/2023

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DLF QUTAB ENCLAVE COMPLEX EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

92 days in filing the appeals i.e., ITA 358/2023 and ITA 360/2023. 2. Ms Kavita Jha, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, does not oppose the prayer made in the above-captioned applications. 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. CM APPL. 34161/2023 in ITA 358/2023 & CM APPL. 34169/2023

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 195. There was no deliberate default in not deducting TDS.” 4.10 The statement made by the appellant is devoid of any substance. The appellant is engaged with the sell/purchase transaction of an immovable property. Before such deal is finalized there must be sufficient enquiry about the property and its owners. When the relevant owner is NRI, this fact should

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 195. There was no deliberate default in not deducting TDS.” 4.10 The statement made by the appellant is devoid of any substance. The appellant is engaged with the sell/purchase transaction of an immovable property. Before such deal is finalized there must be sufficient enquiry about the property and its owners. When the relevant owner is NRI, this fact should

MASS AWASH PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDI. CIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 195. There was no deliberate default in not deducting TDS.” 4.10 The statement made by the appellant is devoid of any substance. The appellant is engaged with the sell/purchase transaction of an immovable property. Before such deal is finalized there must be sufficient enquiry about the property and its owners. When the relevant owner is NRI, this fact should

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

ACIT CIRCLE 2 vs. NIIT ONLINE LEARNING LTD,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the additional grounds of the assessee are dismissed

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

condonation of delay in filing the CO before the Hon’ble ITAT mentions in express terms that search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee. There cannot be greater evidence than an admission of the Assessee that search in fact took place. 38. In this regard, it is relevant to advert

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI vs. ASCENT EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Ita No:- 3734/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022)

section 11 merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements of various courts it is held that appellant cannot be denied benefit of claiming deduction of application of income of Rs 46,92,777/- and also accumulation of Rs. 3,23,632/- being 15% of income. The requirement of filing Form 10B in time

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning the delay, we do not find it necessary to adjudicate upon grounds raised by assessee in present appeal. In the result, we dismiss appeal in ITA 3890/Del/2017 in limine. 6. ITA No.7016/Del/2017 Present appeal filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 24.10.2017 passed by Ld.ACIT, Circle – 18(2), New Delhi. It has been submitted that Ld.Pr.CIT set aside

NT BACK OFFICE SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3890/Del/2017 stands dismissed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-06 (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 418 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 016 New Delhi Pan: Aaccg2046N & Ay: 2010-11 M/S Nt Back Office Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle – 18(2) (Formerly Known As Globerian India Room No. 212 Pvt. Ltd.) C.R. Building 7/6, Sarvapriya Vihar (Lgf) New Delhi New Delhi 110 016 Pan: Aaccg2046N (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoning the delay, we do not find it necessary to adjudicate upon grounds raised by assessee in present appeal. In the result, we dismiss appeal in ITA 3890/Del/2017 in limine. 6. ITA No.7016/Del/2017 Present appeal filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 24.10.2017 passed by Ld.ACIT, Circle – 18(2), New Delhi. It has been submitted that Ld.Pr.CIT set aside

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

delays. Yet another facet of effective remedy is in its cohesiveness. 23. In conclusion, we hold that an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time. Such an award