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

13. We have considered the submissions and arguments of the appellant assessee on the application for condonation of delay and the arguments of Ld. DR as advanced during the course of hearing. We have gone through the orders of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018 and 28.05.2019 and the facts as borne out from the record of assessee in both the appeals

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

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

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

condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section 13

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

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

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

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

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 10(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application as an application for the subsequent assessment year, namely, 2013-2014 in accordance with law. Such direction is issued considering the peculiar

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

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

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

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

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

section 68 are not applicable as the assessee appellant has made re- payment of loan taken from the bank against limit. As such addition of Rs. 9,10,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law. The same be deleted. 3 I.T.A. No. 149/Asr/2023 Gamdoor Singh v. ITO 6. That the appellant craves

AMARJOT SINGH,VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

delay is condoned. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity and has filed his regular return declaring an income of Rs. 2.31 lakhs from other source and agricultural income of Rs. 22.70 lakhs, which has been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act 61. 4. Subsequently, on information from investigation wing