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

delay in filing the appeal before him from 01.04.2014 to 17.07.2014 and the same may please be condoned and appeal may please be heard on merits. 2. That the Assessing Officer has legally erred in law and facts for treating the assessee as a person liable to deduct

M.K HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

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

deduction u/s 80IB was rejected in processing of return u/s 143(1). The ld. counsel further mentioned that during appeal the assessee submitted the affidavit with petition for condonation of delay

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)

delay before the JCIT (A) and before Tribunal are condones and these appeals are admitted. ITA No. 497/Asr/2024 (assessment year 2017-18). 6. From the record, it is evident that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 10.06.2019 in which the returned income was accepted by the AO. Thus, the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) dated

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)

delay before the JCIT (A) and before Tribunal are condones and these appeals are admitted. ITA No. 497/Asr/2024 (assessment year 2017-18). 6. From the record, it is evident that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 10.06.2019 in which the returned income was accepted by the AO. Thus, the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) dated

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)

delay before the JCIT (A) and before Tribunal are condones and these appeals are admitted. ITA No. 497/Asr/2024 (assessment year 2017-18). 6. From the record, it is evident that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 10.06.2019 in which the returned income was accepted by the AO. Thus, the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) dated

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)

delay before the JCIT (A) and before Tribunal are condones and these appeals are admitted. ITA No. 497/Asr/2024 (assessment year 2017-18). 6. From the record, it is evident that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 10.06.2019 in which the returned income was accepted by the AO. Thus, the intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) dated

VOLUNTARY MEDCARE SOCIETY,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS) WARD , JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

deduction u/s. 11 empowered by the CBDT Instruction No 3I.T.A. No.262/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23/4/2019 and CBDT Circular No-6/2020 dated 19/02/2020. The delay for filing the return and Form 10B are condoned

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

condoning the delay and not adjudicating the issue on merits is concerned we find that the assessee is a Private Company Ltd. and the matters relating to the TDS return filing and other connected issues were dealt by Mr. Vipan Sharma aged 63 years. He was handling the matter from 2012 till 2020. Affidavit filed by Mr. Vipan Sharma states

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

condoning the delay and not adjudicating the issue on merits is concerned we find that the assessee is a Private Company Ltd. and the matters relating to the TDS return filing and other connected issues were dealt by Mr. Vipan Sharma aged 63 years. He was handling the matter from 2012 till 2020. Affidavit filed by Mr. Vipan Sharma states

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

condoning the delay and not adjudicating the issue on merits is concerned we find that the assessee is a Private Company Ltd. and the matters relating to the TDS return filing and other connected issues were dealt by Mr. Vipan Sharma aged 63 years. He was handling the matter from 2012 till 2020. Affidavit filed by Mr. Vipan Sharma states

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

condoning the delay and not adjudicating the issue on merits is concerned we find that the assessee is a Private Company Ltd. and the matters relating to the TDS return filing and other connected issues were dealt by Mr. Vipan Sharma aged 63 years. He was handling the matter from 2012 till 2020. Affidavit filed by Mr. Vipan Sharma states

THE BHANOKI CO-OP.AGRI.MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LTD, ,PHAGWARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ATX , PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 588/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 The Bhanoki Co-Op, Agri, Vs Dcit, Phagwara Multipurpose Society Ltd., Vpo Bhanoki, Phagwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat0546N Assessee By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M.S. Parmar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal Most Respectfully it is submitted as under: 1. That the appeal in the abovesaid case was due to be filed by 10.12.2016 i.e. within 60 days of 10.10.2016 when the order of the CIT(A) was served on our counsel in appeal Sh. Y.K. Sud C.A. 2. That Sh. Y.K. Sud C.A. received

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

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

condoned. 4. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. The addition was made for delayed payment of PF and ESI amount of Rs. 4,16,169/-before the close of the financial year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 appeal before

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

deduction under chapter VI-A of the income tax act 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the form 10 IE and revised return filed on 25.03.2022 without considering the fact that it was filed before the processing of original return i.e on 26.05.2022. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condoned the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. The assessee has filed return declaring an income of Rs. 25,08,770/- (APB pg. no. 4-7) and that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs.4,26,748/- (APB pg. no. 66-67). Subsequently, proceedings

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

deduction as claimed under Chapter VIA at Rs.1,00,000/-. 3 I.T.A. No. 18/Asr/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 6. That any other ground of appeal which may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The registry has marked this appeal as time-barred by 98 days, the ld. counsel of the assessee has filed an affidavit

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,68,15,000/- made on account of long term capital gain on sale of residential land