ITAT Chandigarh Bench
6,746 judgments
KC OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIAGRH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN PANCHKULA
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
ARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GURGAON, HARYANA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
ARVINDPAL SINGH, YAMUNA NAGAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
CHUHAR SINGH,CHUHAR SINGH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
DAN SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs ITO WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN,SHIMLA vs DCIT CIRCLE SHIMLA, SHIMLA
the learned CIT(A). It is noted that two appeals were filed—one in physical form and another electronically. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on the ground of non-prosecution and subsequently dismissed the electronically filed appeal treating the same as infructuous, without adjudicating the issues on merits.5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
PARAMJOT KAUR,PUNJAB vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH vs ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK
BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
HOME CONSTRUCTION CO, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
GOPAL KRISHAN BANSAL, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs ITO WARD -1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, SIRHIND
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-I MANDI GOBINDGARH HQ SIRHIND vs GOPAL KRISHAN BANSAL, AGGARWAL STEEL TUBES
SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA FIGHTER CLUB,AMBALA vs CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
HARBHAJAN SINGH,PUNJAB vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, DELHI
SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)
PLATINUM SALES,CHANDIGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)
DEEPAK KUMAR PROP. M/S URVI ENTERPRISES MANDIGOBINDGARH,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 MANDI GOBINDGARH, MANDI GOBINDGARH
MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH
the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f
PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH
the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f
