M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance under the said section, where the assessee had deducted tax at source on payments made in conformity with Chapter XVII-B and deposited the same on or before due date specified in section 139

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing carry forward of loss in 153A assessment is proper, because the return was belated in accordance with provisions of section 139

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

139(4) of the Act, the disallowance made and\nsustained is not in accordance with law.\n2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also\nfailed to appreciate that clarification vide F.No. 173/193/2019-ITA-I\ndated 23.4.2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes read with\nmemorandum explaining Finance Bill in respect of third proviso\ninserted to section

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4700/Del/2014 2 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That the disallowance of carry forward of long term capital loss claimed on the sale of shares in the revised return of Rs.206,25,53,801/- as sustained

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

disallowance under section 54 of the Act, which is a beneficial section and for that purpose only thing to be ensured is that capital gains consideration arising on sale of long-term capital asset are reinvested in residential property. She further submitted that even as per section 54 of the Act, there is no requirement that the assessee should have

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of deduction u/s 54 for investment made in new residential house between the period of due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) and date of return of income filed U/s 139(4), i.e., a belated return. 4. That CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and facts of the case by passing a non-speaking order. “ 6. None

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARISH CHANDER KHULLAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 4 of 139 of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the exemption on the long

EFFORT FOUDATION (N.G.O),DELHI vs. ITO , DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

disallowed the assessee’s section 11 exemption claim on account of the fact that it had filed it’s return on 14.03.2019 i.e. very well beyond the due date thereof coming to 30.09.2018. It is noticed in this factual backdrop that the tribunal’s recent order in Indian Medical Association Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 767/PUN/2025 dated 16.06.2025 that even

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

sections": [ "80IB", "139(1)", "139(5)", "115JB", "143(1)", "143(1)(a)", "36(1)(va)", "43B", "80IB(11A)", "80IB(7)", "44AB", "80A(5)", "80AC", "147", "148", "10B", "32(1)(ii-a)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance

ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowing the claim u/s 10AA of the I.T. Act that the assessee has not fulfilled or violated any of the conditions mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 10AA of the I.T. Act. 12. The precondition of filing the return before the specified due date u/s 139

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2012 is ineligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act which he disallowed

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

disallow deduction u/s 80JJAA, as the return was admittedly not filed within due date u/s 139(1).  The adjustment was in conformity with law and aligned with the mandate of Section

M/S. FIBERFILL ENGINEERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

section 80AC makes it very clear that the return of income should have been filed within time limit specified u/s 139(1). He relied on various case laws mentioned in his order, wherein it was held that return has to be filed before due date specified u/s 139(1) for claiming deduction u/s 80IB. 10. The third reason for denying

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer has to, thereafter, proceed with the assessment/reassessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that is, accept the return with or without such adjustments as permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act or if the claims made by the assessee are considered as inadmissible and/or it is considered necessary

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

139 of the Act. Thus, the assessing officer has to, thereafter, proceed with the assessment/reassessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that is, accept the return with or without such adjustments as permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act or if the claims made by the assessee are considered as inadmissible and/or it is considered necessary