PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

condonation petition and written submission as under:- That the Hon’ble ITAT in the order has stated that delay for the period from 1st/May/2014 to 17th/July/2014 may be explained to the CIT(A). That on 04/April/2014 we send the letter to Head Office at Chandigarh via Letter No: 53/04.04.2014, stating that the case has been decided against the Punjab State

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay in filing the TDS statement. The ld. CIT(A) has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and after

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,GARHSHANKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, HOSIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay is hereby condoned. Appeal admitted on merits. 3. Briefly facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs. 2,83,070/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the year 2015-16 and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was served upon the assessee

SHRI ZAFFAR MEHRAJ SHAH,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (3), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

TDS has been deducted by Ebix Travels (P) Ltd. with whom my brother was dealing for the purchase of tickets. As such there was no reason for the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO and as such the addition made may be deleted. 5. That the CIT(A) should have allowed the deduction as claimed under

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS) 2. The Ld. AR requested condonation of the Delay of 311 days explaining the reasons for delay in written

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS) 2. The Ld. AR requested condonation of the Delay of 311 days explaining the reasons for delay in written

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS) 2. The Ld. AR requested condonation of the Delay of 311 days explaining the reasons for delay in written

SHRI MUZAFFAR JAN PAMPORI ,SRINAGRAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 ( 2), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 8 days is hereby condoned. The appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax by the AO ex- parte qua the assessee without granting an adequate opportunity of being 3 I.T.A. No. 134/Asr/2023 Muzaffar

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS return of Department. And the department had filed the correction return during the Assessment proceedings . Further in reply dated 22.12.2016 copy of the Acknowledgement of the revised return of the PMGSY div. Ramban was also furnished. The changes in I.T.A. No.168/Asr/2020 3 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Form 26 AS were effected by the PMGSY Department before the Assessment order

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KAPURTHALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

TDS) dated 10.02.2021 has been carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority on 11.12.2023 which was belated by 1004 (One thousand four) days. The said appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable by the ld. first appellate authority refusing to condone the delay

CHIEF MANGER, CANRA BANK ( PERSON RESPONSIBLE) ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS ) CIRCLE , JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 1870 days in filing the appeal with the support of notarized affidavit duly attested by the public notary. The condonation petition of the appellant-assessee is reproduced as under: “It is submitted that: 1. Commissioner Appeal Amritsar has passed ex parte order on 5-03-2018 in respect of appeal filed against Order of ITO TDS

SHREE RADHA KRISHAN CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

TDS returns, the last date of which was 31.10.2024 and as such, he could not prepare the appeal within the time and as such, he prayed that the delay of 27 days as attributable to the counsel of the assessee, may please be condoned

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay for 30 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed an adjournment petition and assessee was I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unable to represent the matter because assessee’s counsel for out of state. The issue is well settled

THE PHAMBRA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED,SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS, Jalandhar, (in brevity the ld. AO) order passed u/s 201(1) of the Act. 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 102 days. The assessee filed the petition for condonation

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,JK BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS vs. ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR, ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condone the delay of 324 days and 80 days in filing the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos. in the case of in I.T.A. No. 237/Asr/2025 and I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 with respect to Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Accordingly, these appeals are admitted. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,JK BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS vs. ITO (TDS), SRINAGAR, SILK FACTORY ROAD SRINAGAR

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessees are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

condone the delay of 324 days and 80 days in filing the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos. in the case of in I.T.A. No. 237/Asr/2025 and I.T.A. No. 237 & 238/Asr/2025 with respect to Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Accordingly, these appeals are admitted. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee

M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay is hereby condoned. Appeal is allowed to be heard on merits. 2. The counsel submitted that the appellant assessee is a charitable society registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act where the ld. AO has levied late fee of Rs.12,595/- for filing of TDS

DAWN COTTAGE EMPORIUM,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 46 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, but none appeared on behalf of assessee. The adjournment petition was filed by the ld. counsel. The issue was mentioned in the adjournment petition which is extracted as below: “The appeal in the above matter is listed for hearing today on the 25, May 2023. Since