SHRI SATISH KUMAR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX FFICER WARD- 3 (3), JALANDHAR

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,928/- u/s 36(1)(va) made under section 36(1

M/S AMAR COACH BUILDERS ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,928/- u/s 36(1)(va) made under section 36(1

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.

delay of 2 days in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond its control. Therefore the same is 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

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

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is 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

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

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is 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

DERA SWAMI JAGAT GIRI TRUST ( REGD),PATHANKOT vs. COMMISSIONER ODF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assesse society is allowed in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961, in which the registration has been refused u/s 12A. 2. That the Ld. CIT(E) has grossly erred in not condoning the delay and the worthy CIT(E) should have condoned the delay in view of CBDT Circular No.10/2019 dated 22/05/2019 and Circular No. 28/2019 dated 2 ITA No.118 /(Asr)/20 27/09/2019

RAHUL KHINDRI,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

139(1) is directory in nature and as such the benefit of lower tax rate cannot be denied. 4. That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as since the adoption of lower tax rate as per section 115BAC cannot be brought under the ambit of adjustment u/s 143(1) which covers

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 u/s 119(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

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

delay of 80 days is condoned, in view of the bonafide reason of the medical ground and accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Pritpal Kaur v. ITO 4. The grounds raised are vague and not specific to issue. However, the assessee’s main grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly imposed penalty of Rs.5000

MEASAGE GRAM SEWA AND VIKLANG SHAYTA SANSTHA REGD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

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

1 97098 was created. Assessee filed online application under section question the CPC to accept the audit report and allow the exemption under section 11 and 12 but the CPC rejected the same for the reason that he has not furnished 3 Assessment Year: 2016-17 details of audit in the schedule audit information and form 10 B report

M.K HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

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

139 for A.Y. 2010-11. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and deduction u/s 80IB was rejected which was claimed by the assessee regularly since A.Y. 2002-03. The total demand I.T.A. No.57/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 was raised amount of Rs.12,35,390/-. As per the assessee, there is no intimation was servedby the department.So,the assessee

INDU MAHAJAN,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAX CIRCLE-5 , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

condoned. 4. The brief fact of case is that the assessee has filed return u/s 139(1) for the impugned assessment year. By passing the audit report of the assessee the return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) and the disallowance was made for late deposit of contribution made in respect of PF & ESI u/s 36 (1

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

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

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

M/S KOSMO VEHICELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3), AMRITSAR

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

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

SMT. GURINDER KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), AMRITSAR

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

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

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

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

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

1 29.09.2023 The application for registration of the trust u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 29.09.2023 by the assessee in Form No.10AB under Rule 11AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 2 27.10.2023 The Assessing Officer requested to specify the date of commencement of activities by the trust/society as well as details documents

SAVITRI WOOD PRODUCTS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

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

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued