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

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

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

SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,BATHINDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with

THE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with

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