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 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

3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action

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

3 SCC 195 it was observed by the Supreme Court that acceptance of the explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. In the present case, the Tribunal has found that the assessee-society has taken prompt remedial action

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

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

3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23/4/2019 and CBDT Circular No-6/2020 dated 19/02/2020. The delay for filing the return and Form 10B are condoned by the CBDT on this Circular. 4. The ld. AR relied on the section 12A(1)(b) and he mentioned that it is pertinent to mention that section 12A(1)(b) as applicable

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

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

3 and 13 is as under: “10. That under similar circumstances, Honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana condoned delay of 154 days in the case of THUNUGUNTLA JAGAN MOHAN RAO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 427 ITR 0204 in filing appeal against order u/s 263 of the Act with following observations in para 24. The Revisional Authority

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 ), 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,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 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

SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

delay for 14 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by worthy PCIT -1 is arbitrary, whimsical, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

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

3 21.12.2023 The assessee submitted its reply vide letter dated 21.12.2023 along with Annexure, according to which the assessee had commenced its activities on 25.06.2007. From the perusal of the reply dated 21.12.2023, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the provisional approval in Form 10AC was issued on 04.04.2022 under clause (iv) of the first proviso

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

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 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