VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

condonation of delay.\n6.\nBrief facts of the case as per the order of the Addl. CIT(A) is as\nunder:-\n\"The appellant is an individual and has filed its\nreturn\nof income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 25/03/2022 (revised\nreturn) showing taxable income of Rs. 12,65,180/-.\nThe Assessing Officer vide order

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

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

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

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

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

income from agricultural land. As such, addition confirmed is unjustified and uncalled for. The same be deleted. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts by upholding addition of Rs. 9,10,000/- without appreciating the explanation furnished and material already placed on record before the A.O. As such no addition is called

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 20. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by thirty-seven days (37 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assessee

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 20. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by thirty-seven days (37 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assessee

AMARJOT SINGH,VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 20. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by thirty-seven days (37 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assessee

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 20. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by thirty-seven days (37 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assessee

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2022. 20. Condonation of delay: This appeal is filed belatedly by thirty-seven days (37 days), and an application is filed by assessee praying for condonation of delay on medical grounds that the assessee

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

delay for 14 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by worthy PCIT -1 is arbitrary, whimsical, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

SHRI NITIN SEHGAL,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravelly erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- in respect of cash seized from the assessee. 3.1 That while sustaining the addition, the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the source of amounts and the cash flow chart filed during the assessment proceedings. 4. That the appellant begs

SHRI JASWANT SINGH,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 4 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara order passed u/s 144/147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.217 to 220/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3 days. The ld. AR explained that the delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara order passed u/s 144/147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.217 to 220/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3 days. The ld. AR explained that the delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara order passed u/s 144/147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.217 to 220/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3 days. The ld. AR explained that the delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible

SHRI JASWANT SINGH ,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -4, PHAGWARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Phagwara order passed u/s 144/147 and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos.217 to 220/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3 days. The ld. AR explained that the delay of 3 days is due to postal delay and it is negligible

M/S MEHTA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

delay of 8 days in filing appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is allowed to be heard on merit. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil after claiming exemption u/s 10(23C) (iii) (ad) of the I.T. Act, 1961. During