ITAT Chandigarh Bench
6,746 judgments
MS. GEETA BHATIA, KHANNA,KHANNA vs INOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, KHANNA
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
VARITRA FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, AMBALA, AMBALA
the CIT(A) on 14.12.2024 against the intimation dated 27.11.2023 issued under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the assessee was unaware of the said intimation as the registered email address was inaccessible, and the order was not served through any valid mode prescribed under law. The assessee contended that it became aware of the order only upon receipt of a telephonic communication from the Department demanding payment, whereafter the appeal was filed withou
PARMAL SINGH,PANCHKULA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 3, PANCHKULA
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
DHANPATI WIFE OF SH. GAJE SINGH DEFENCE COLONY, GALI NO.3 DISTRICT KATHAL,HARYANA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, KAITHAL, HARYANA
SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
RAJEEV MAHINDRU,LUDHIANA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-3, LUDHIANA
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
MDC GLOBAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
RAVINDER SINGH, KHANNA,LUDHIANA vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
NAMAH FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
STUDENT AID SOCIETY,PANJAB UNIVERSITY vs CIT EXEMPTIONS, CR BUILDING
us.2. Upon perusal of para-3.2 of the impugned order, it could be seen that the assessee had already commenced its activities on 03-03-1976 when it applied for provisional registration to CPC on 06-05-2024. However, this registration could be applied only when the assessee had not commenced its activities which was not the case. Accordingly, the registration application was rejected and also the provisional registration was held to be bad in law. The Ld. AR has prayed that error occurred in
ISH KUMAR,VILLAGE KULLAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD
us.2. From case records, it emerges that the assessee is engaged in sale of SIM card and data recharge of idea cellular Ltd. under proprietor concern by the name M/s Muskan Communication. In this line of business, the margins would be low. The assessee does not have any other source of income. On these facts, the estimation of 8%, in our considered opinion, is on the higher side. Considering the nature of business and with a view to settle the dispute, it would be in the fitness of thing to
SAHIL PHUTELA,AMBALA CITY vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, AMBALA, AMBALA
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
REENA BHATIA, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) LDH, PUNJAB
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
SUKHVINDER SINGH,TOHANA vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, FATEHABAD, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), INCOME-TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD
us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is to remit the appeal back to Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,NER CHOWK vs ITO(TDS), MANDI
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
RAVI KANTA MUNISUBRAT DASS JAIN MEMORIAL TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
PRINCE TYGAI,MOHALI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
OM PARKASH DAHIYA,CHANDIGARH vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH
investigating officer of Enforcement Directorate, the assessee admitted to have made payment of Rs.60 Lacs in cash during FYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 which was not retracted till date. The issue was to examine the sources of payments made. The assessee made payment of Rs.45 Lacs to M/s United Engineers Construction Co. during this year. However, Ld. AO did not make any enquiry / examination with respect to sources of cash payments and genuineness and creditworthiness of alleged cash flow which
RITU BANGIA ,LUDHIANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1) , LUDHIANA
us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is admission of appeal and adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT-DR has opposed the same.
RANA SUGARS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
RANA SUGARS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
