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

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

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

2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section 13

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

13 of the income tax Act in the light of the insertion of the proviso to section 12 A of the income tax Act more particularly when the assessee was granted the registration on 25 September 2009, and prior thereto the assessee was a having the approval under section 10(23) of the Act. 3 Whether the case is required

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

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

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

condoned. 4. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. The addition was made for delayed payment of PF and ESI amount of Rs. 4,16,169/-before the close of the financial year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 appeal before

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.3 However, we find that negligence on the part of the Secretary of the assessee society and his counsel cannot be ruled out and this is a fit case for imposition of costs and considering the fact that the appellant is an agricultural Multipurpose cooperative society, we impose

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

M/S VARINDRA TOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE,II, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: 03.10.2021. 2. That Necessary Fees Was Deposited Well Before Time I.E. 29.09.2021. 3. That Appeal Was Sent To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar On 30.09.2021 Through Courier Well Before Due Of Date Of Filing Of Appeal. It Was Expected That Courier Will Reach Itat Office Well Before Due Date. However, On Receipt Of Letter, We Have Come To Know That There Is Delay Of 2 Days In Filing Of Appeal. 4. That We Are Enclosing Herewith Copy Of Receipt Of Courier & Track Record In Support Of The Fact That Courier Sent On 30.09.2021 Was Delivered In The Office Of Itat On 05.10.2021 Resulting In Delay Of 2 Days. 5. That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Has Happened Because Of Reasons Beyond Control Of Assessee. Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional.

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 2,15,791/- on account of employees contribution towards EPF/ESI deposited after due date but before

M/S GLOBE AUTO PARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III, JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 7. Following grounds have been raised in ITA No.99/Asr/2021 read as under:. 1. That on facts and circumstances

M/S GLOBE AUTO ARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- III (4), JALANDHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 7. Following grounds have been raised in ITA No.99/Asr/2021 read as under:. 1. That on facts and circumstances

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

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

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