ITAT Amritsar Bench

PRAMJEET KAUR,MANDI DABWALI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANSA

the Tribunal has been filed on 12th April, 2025 and as such, the delay in filing this appeal was not willful and there was no intentional neglect on the part of the assessee in filing the same. She prayed for condonation of the delay and admission of the appeal to be heard on merits.3. The ld. DR has no objection.

MALKIAT SINGH DHALIWAL,FEROZEPUR CITY vs ITO, FEROZEPUR CANTT.

the tribunal on the sustained addition of Rs.2.22 lakhs, being the amount received by the assessee from his son for investment in purchase of the agricultural land.

PAMOIST CHARITABLE TRUST,JAGRAON vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD, JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR

the Tribunal, and the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that the tax demand raised in original assessment has been reduced to Nil as a result of the application filed for condonation of delay in filing Form 10/10AB before the ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh has been accepted vide order dated 24.02.2025 and consequently, effect of the same was given by ld. CIT(E) on 3rd March, 2025 and the tax liability has been recomputed at Nil. As such, in conse

SONU, FAZILKA,PUNJAB vs ASSESSMENT UNIT, JOA ITO WARD 2(3), ABOHAR, PUNJAB

rejecting the appeal on the grounds of delay, no opportunity of hearing has been allowed to the assessee to put forth his reasons and to explain the cause of delay of 117 days. As such, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority to allow adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay with sufficient reasons and thereafter on satisfactory explanation of the same, the ld. first appellate authority may proceed to dispose o

GHULAM MOHD RATHER,ASHMUJI vs ITO, ANANTNAG

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

GHULAM MOHD RATHER,ASHMUJI vs ITO, ANNATNAG

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

RAVI KANT LUTHRA,AMRITSAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), AMRITSAR

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

GURMAIL DASS SIDDHAR (DECEASED) THRU LH NIRANJAN KAUR(WIDOW),HOSHIARPUR vs ITO W-1 , HOSHIARPUR

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

PANKAJ AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,G.T ROAD, MOGA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

SHRI SUBASH GUPTA,JAMMU vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs ITO, WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

IMRAN MAJEED,SRINAGAR vs ITO WARD 1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

AMAR DEEP GUPTA HOUSE NO 50 DAKKI SARAJIAN PEER MITHA JAMMU,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) JAMMU PANAMA CHOWK JAMMU, JAMMU

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

MUKTISAR WELFARE CLUB,MUKTSAR, PUNJAB vs ITO WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR, MUKTSAR

MUKTISAR WELFARE CLUB,MUKTSAR vs ITO WARD 2(2), MUKTSAR/, MUKTSAR,PUNJAB

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

GURU KIRPA ENTERPRISES,NAWANSHAHR vs ITO WARD, NAWANSHAHR, NAWANSHAHR

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

SARAV SEWA CHARITABLE SOCIETY,TARN TARAN vs WARD 1, TTN, TARN TARAN, PUNJAB

SIMRANJEET KAUR BHATTI,LUDHIANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), SHRI MUKTSAR SAHIB

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

SUDESH KUMARI,JAMMU vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JAMMU RAIL HEAD COMPLEX PANAMA CHOWK JAMMU, JAMMU

SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA (Judicial Member)

SHRI MUZAFER AHMAD RATHER ,ANANTNAG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

the Tribunal on 29th July, 2024 which is belated by 163 days. He prayed that since the delay was not intentional or willful on the part of the assessee, the delay in filing this appeal may please be condoned and the appeal may please be admitted to be heard on merits.3. Considering the submissions of the assessee, we are of the opinion that there are no intentional neglect on the part of the assessee, and as such we condone the delay of 163 (one hundred sixty-three) days and admit the appea