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

DR. S A RASHID,KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KASHMIR

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

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

section 69. The matter is taken for adjudication as below. 5. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee has made the investment Rs.70,95,120/- under the head ‘Deposits and Savings and GPF’ which was reflected in balance sheet. The addition was made by the ld. AO due to lack I.T.A. No.632/Asr/2015 3 Assessment Year: 2002-03 explanation

SHER-E- KASHMIR COLLAGE OF EDUCATION ( UNIT OF ) PIR PANCHAL EDUCATION TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , JAMMU

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

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

delay for 3080 days is condoned. I.T.A. No. 190/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the order of Learned CIT(A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable in law. 2. That the worthy

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

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

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

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

delay of 334 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr. CIT, Bathinda erred in revising the assessment order Dated 14.12.2018 passed by the AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue

SH. SHAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

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

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

condonation of delay in filing the belated appeal. 4. That the worthy CIT(A) should have allowed an opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing the belated appeal. The Learned Chandigarh Bench has taken this view that the CIT(A) must allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in filing the belated appeal. This view

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total