BAHADUR KE TEXTILES & KNITWEAR ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

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

12. “(a) In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (supra), a two-Judge Bench observed that the legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting Section

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

condoning the delay. 24. On the question of perversity of the decision of the Tribunal we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in I.T.A. No. 257 & 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A 11 Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28. In that judgment, it was noted that only a question of law can be referred

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

condoning the delay. 24. On the question of perversity of the decision of the Tribunal we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in I.T.A. No. 257 & 258/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: N/A 11 Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1957] 31 ITR 28. In that judgment, it was noted that only a question of law can be referred

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

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

condone the delay. He further argued that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principle laid down in the judgment of hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal reported at 195 ITR 825 (Cal). 7. The Ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the provisions of Section

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

12-2003, until June, 2008. The Supreme Court held that unless that fact was to be refuted by the Revenue, question of disbelieving stand taken by assessee on affidavit, could not arise and for which reason, High Court should have shown sympathy to assessee by condoning delay in filing concerned appeal(s).” Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 250 along with Condonation of delay annexed at the time of filing of appeal of Police transport workshop is attached). Also it is worthwhile to mention here that the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi as on 24.11.2021 in the case of KV01 BBCANTT BATWARA SRINAGAR vide Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037171129(1) has condoned the delay of 4 years

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 250 along with Condonation of delay annexed at the time of filing of appeal of Police transport workshop is attached). Also it is worthwhile to mention here that the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi as on 24.11.2021 in the case of KV01 BBCANTT BATWARA SRINAGAR vide Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037171129(1) has condoned the delay of 4 years

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF NCOME TAX CPC ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 250 along with Condonation of delay annexed at the time of filing of appeal of Police transport workshop is attached). Also it is worthwhile to mention here that the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi as on 24.11.2021 in the case of KV01 BBCANTT BATWARA SRINAGAR vide Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037171129(1) has condoned the delay of 4 years

EXEXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE ,SRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), SRI NAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 250 along with Condonation of delay annexed at the time of filing of appeal of Police transport workshop is attached). Also it is worthwhile to mention here that the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi as on 24.11.2021 in the case of KV01 BBCANTT BATWARA SRINAGAR vide Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037171129(1) has condoned the delay of 4 years

EXEXECUTIVE ENGINEER FLORICULTURE ,SRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC ( TDS ), SRINAGAR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 250 along with Condonation of delay annexed at the time of filing of appeal of Police transport workshop is attached). Also it is worthwhile to mention here that the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi as on 24.11.2021 in the case of KV01 BBCANTT BATWARA SRINAGAR vide Order No ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037171129(1) has condoned the delay of 4 years

SANT BABA BODHA NANAD GAUSHALLA COMMITTEE,MANSA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sant Baba Bodha Nand Gaushalla The Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh, Committee/Aop (Trust) C/O-J. K. Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-17-E, Gupta, Advocate 4702, Hospital Vs Chandigarh-160017 Bazar, Bathinda, (Punjab)-151005 Pan-Aaits0667H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri J. K. Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr

section 80G of the Act has not been filed within the time limit prescribed therein and also the assessee has not filed its application within the extended time limit provided by CBDT vide its circular No. 12 of 2021 dated 25.06.2021, circular No.16 of 2021 dated 29.08.2021 and circular No. 8 of 2022 dated 31.03.2022 which were discussed

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal admitted on merits. 4. The Ld. PCIT observed that the assessment has been finalized by the Assessing Officer, without carrying out the necessary verification regarding source of cash deposited in the Bank account. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub section (1) of section

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,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