ITAT Chandigarh Bench

SHREE TRIVENI FOODS,PARWANOO vs ITO PARWANOO, PARWANOO

SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

THE HARYANA STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LTD., ,PANCHKULA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE,, PANCHKULA

the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex parte for want of compliance, thereby confirming the addition.

KULDEEP SINGH,VPO DILLOW WALI, DISTT. KAITHAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

SHER SINGH,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs NFAC DELHI, HIMACHAL PRADESH

SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

HARPAL SINGH,AMBALA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMBALA, AMBALA

SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

SH. AVINASH GUPTA,CHANDIGARH vs PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 12.03.2021 passed for assessment year 2016-17.

CHARAN SINGH,VPO TOPRA KALAN vs ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

KARAM SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KURUKSHETRA

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

PARMINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs ITO, WARD 3(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

PARMINDER SINGH ,LUDHIANA vs ITO, WARD 3(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

PARMINDER SINGH,LUDHIANA vs ITO, WARD 3(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted during the course of appellate proceeding, the assessee requested the Ld. CIT(A) to adjourn the matter on the ground that the assessee is contemplating to avail the benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. However the Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the request and proceeded to pass the ex-parte order.

JARNAIL SINGH, MOHALI,MOHALI vs JAO ITO WARD-6(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

HARKANWALJOT SINGH SRAN,BRAMPTON, CANADA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGRAON, LUDHIANA

ASIAN SPORTS,PATIALA vs ITO, PATIALA

SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

ANIL KUMAR MITTAL H.NO. 143, DLF VALLEY PANCHKULA,PANCHKULA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

the Ld. CIT(A) who has since confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 dated 30/03/2019 has not been served on the assessee on his address and some other address has been mentioned in the notice which doesn't belong to the assessee. It was submitted that on inspection of the assessment records, it has been noted that the notice has been re

HARMEL SINGH,PARWANOO vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD PARWANOO, PARWANOO

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

JASWANT SINGH,YAMUNA NAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 3, YAMUNANAGAR,HARYANA

SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

PARDEEP KUMAR,KAITHAL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAITHAL

SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

KULWINDER KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH

the Ld. CIT(A), no effective compliance was made in response to the statutory notices issued in the appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution, while also observing that in the absence of any written submissions or evidences filed, the grounds raised by the assessee could not be entertained on merits.3.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the necessary documents and e

SHAPING CAREERS EDUCATION SOCIETY,PANCHKULA vs ITO EXEMPTION WARD,, AMBALA

SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)