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

disallow its section 13A\nexemption claim for the precise reason that it had not filed its\nreturn dated 02.02.2019 (supra) on or before the “due” date under\nsection 139(4B) of the Act. The assessee filed its reply on\n10.02.2020 that its above return had indeed been filed well within\nthe due date under section 139(4B) which could

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

ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

RELIGARE FINVEST LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

5 ITA Nos. 4796/Del/2017 & ors. M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. Vs. DCIT Re : Disallowance of depreciation claimed on vehicles given on finance lease 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.9,65,00,120 made by the assessing officer being difference of (i) depreciation of Rs.35,07,63,697 claimed on vehicles given

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

5) & (6) of section 10A / 10B of the I.T. Act and confirmed the disallowance without noticing these sub-sections do not mandate that the return of income should be filed within 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

5) even though he made no deposits of un-invested capital gain in capital gains account scheme on or before the due date of filing ITR under section 139(1). 18. The decision in Dr. Dharmista Mehta’s case (supra) applies squarely to the facts of the assessee’s case before us. The Ld. AR has also placed reliance

NEETA GARG,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 30(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

5 I.T.A. No. 2337/Del/2023 under section 119 of the Act, however, furnished Form No.67 along with her revised return of income on 26/08/2020. We further find that Rule 128(9) has recently been substituted by the Income-tax (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Rules, 2022, w.r.e.f. 01/04/2022 and the same reads as under: “(9) The statement in Form No. 67 referred

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

139 to provide that every such person mentioned above, shall, if the total income in respect of which person, is assessable without giving effect to the provisions of section 10, exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return of such income of the previous year.” 49. Even if the Assessee’s view that

JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 30, NEW DELHI

section 147 deals with\nassessment/reassessment of escaped income and relied on\nCommissioner of Income-tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd.\n[1992] 64 Taxman 442 (Supreme Court) [17-09-1992]; DCIT Vs Sew\nInfrastructure Ltd ITAT Hyderabad (Special Bench) dated 07.10.2024\nand Charchit Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCentral Circle 12, New Delhi

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

139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,10,42,45,751/- as against the income declared of Rs. 1,07,56,68,480/- in the invalid return of income after making certain disallowances aggregating

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

139(9) of the Act. 19.01.2016 The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessed the total income at Rs. 1,10,42,45,751/- as against the income declared of Rs. 1,07,56,68,480/- in the invalid return of income after making certain disallowances aggregating

M/S. JINDAL PHOTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 147 deals with\nassessment/reassessment of escaped income and relied on\nCommissioner of Income-tax vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd.\n[1992] 64 Taxman 442 (Supreme Court) [17-09-1992]; DCIT Vs Sew\nInfrastructure Ltd ITAT Hyderabad (Special Bench) dated 07.10.2024\nand Charchit Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,\nCentral Circle 12, New Delhi

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 80AC(ii). The CIT(A) erred in interfering with such lawful adjustment on grounds which are legally untenable. DR's Contentions for Ground No. 2: 1. Error in Treating