SNIGDHA SALUJA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-30(1), DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Ms. Kriti Bindal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) has levied penalty u/s. 271

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14,NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

penalty of Rs. 12,36,814/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 3. There is a delay of 11 days in filing appeal by the assessee. Finding the reasons stated by the assessee to be plausible and reasonable, we condone

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KOSTUB INVESTMENT LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed being infructuous

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

271(1)(c) for imposing the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3 2281/Del/2014 & C.O. No. 204.Del.14 M/s Kostub Investment Ltd. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the assessee had filed the objections at a belated stage, therefore, there is an objection by the Registry, of a delay

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

PUSHPA RANI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2 | P a g e ITA No.365/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2007-08] [QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS] 5. First, we take up ITA No. 365/Del/2022 filed by the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year : 2007-08. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- Ground No.1 “The Honourable

MANISH CHOUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was received by the assessee on 17.03.2017 and the appeal was filed on 20.04.2017. Thus there was a delay of mere 04 days, which could have been condoned

DHARAM PAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -42(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

condone the delay of 164 days in filing the present appeal. 4 Shri Dharampal, New Delhi 7. The Ld. Counsel for the vehemently contended that the order of penalty has been issued based on the defective notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing

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

condone the delay in removing the defects by the assessee u/s 139(9) and consider such returns as valid. 3. In pending cases as on date, where the defect specified u/s 139(9) of the Act has not been rectified by the assessee, the AD would be required to immediately initiate proceedings under section 144 of the Act by issuing