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

rectification U/s 154 is binding on the revenue authorities, In our considered view by following the CBDT Instruction no. 173/193/2019-ITA- 1, that if the return is filed within the specified time limit of sub section of 139 would be eligible for the benefit given by the above mentioned CBDT circular and should avail the benefit of exemption u/s

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

rectification proceedings u/s 154/155 of the Act warranting no action u/s 263 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-1 (‘Ld. CIT’) has grossly erred in law in passing order u/s 263 of the Act, when the assessment has already been concluded by the Assessing Officer u/s

JAMMU AND KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR

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

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

rectification under section 154 and to allow a claim of Rs.63,72,588/- made by the assessee in the revised return.” 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 199 days wherein, assessee has stated that the aftermath of abrogation of special constitutional status of the erstwhile J & K, resulted huge delay in filing of appeal

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SH SATPAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Sh. O.P.Meena

rectification application filed u/s 154 by the assessee vide its order dated 1st Feb., 2016, order, which was received by the assessee on 3rd Feb., 2017. As the assessee had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, therefore could not challenge the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in First Appeal before the ITAT and subsequently the instant appeal was filed

SH SATPAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Sh. O.P.Meena

rectification application filed u/s 154 by the assessee vide its order dated 1st Feb., 2016, order, which was received by the assessee on 3rd Feb., 2017. As the assessee had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, therefore could not challenge the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in First Appeal before the ITAT and subsequently the instant appeal was filed

SH. SATPAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Sh. O.P.Meena

rectification application filed u/s 154 by the assessee vide its order dated 1st Feb., 2016, order, which was received by the assessee on 3rd Feb., 2017. As the assessee had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, therefore could not challenge the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in First Appeal before the ITAT and subsequently the instant appeal was filed

SH. SATPAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Sh. O.P.Meena

rectification application filed u/s 154 by the assessee vide its order dated 1st Feb., 2016, order, which was received by the assessee on 3rd Feb., 2017. As the assessee had filed an application u/s 154 of the Act, therefore could not challenge the order dated 08.08.2016 passed in First Appeal before the ITAT and subsequently the instant appeal was filed

INDU MAHAJAN,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAX CIRCLE-5 , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

delay for 88 days is condoned. 4. The brief fact of case is that the assessee has filed return u/s 139(1) for the impugned assessment year. By passing the audit report of the assessee the return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) and the disallowance was made for late deposit of contribution made in respect

MEASAGE.OSAKA ALLOYS AND STEEL (P) LTD,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

The appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.347/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Osaka Alloys & Steel (P) Ltd. Dcit Circle - Ii बनाम/ 428, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar Jalandhar Punjab - 144001 C/O Bhagat & Co. (Ca) Vs. 16 Brij Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab - 144001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-7097-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Adjournment Request " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

condonation of delay. Accepting the plea of the assessee, we admit the appeal and proceed with the adjudication of the same on merits. 4. During hearing, an opportunity was also granted to Ld. AR to make oral arguments which he has chose not to make. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal on the basis

MEASAGE GRAM SEWA AND VIKLANG SHAYTA SANSTHA REGD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

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

u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, the AR argued that in the light of the provisions of Sections 139(5) and 139(9) of the Act, to remove defects in the return and so the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 11 of the Act. Even otherwise, the AO had powers to condone

HARDIK BHARTI,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 4(3) , JALANDHAR

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

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

u/s 143(1), which was rejected by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, vide order dated 19.05.2023, on the ground that the assessee has declared the amount of capital gains at Rs.4,23,900/- in the column No. A2c of the Schedule CG which has resulted in this assessment by CPC, Bengaluru generated out of the system and the according

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

condonation application dated 11.10.2016 explains the delay as on account of the assessee having moved an application u/s. 154 before the ld. CIT(A) immediately on the receipt of the impugned order on 04.04.2016, praying that the addition could not be at Rs.14.20 2 Jaspal Singh v. ITO lacs, as confirmed, as the same, representing the price of the shop

MUSLIM EDUCATION INSTITUTE TRUST,NAMLABAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AWRD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

rectification intimation issued by CPC u/s 154 on 07-06-2019. It emerges that the assessee filed return of income on 29- 07-2017 which was within time. However, Audit Report in Form 10B was filed on 25-08-2018 which was beyond due date u/s 139(1). Accordingly, CPC denied deduction as applicable to assessee-trust. The action

M/S JAMMU COOPERATIVE WHOLE SALE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), JAMMU

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 150/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Jammu Cooperative Whole Sale The Ito Limited (Super Bazar) Old Hospital Ward-2(1) Road, City Chowk, Jammu- Jammu 180001(J&K)-180001

rectification order for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 be carried forward and adjusted against the income determined for the Year under consideration. 6. It is prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to allow the appellant to amend or file additional / alternate ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 2. None appeared on behalf