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

139(4A). So, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 11 empowered by the CBDT Instruction No 3I.T.A. No.262/Asr/2023 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

PUNNU SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

delay was found, application for condonation and SLP filed against impugned High Court order was liable to be dismissed - Held, yes” 6.2.2.Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Assistant Commissioner of Income-taxv.Hotel Blue Moon, [2010] 188 Taxman 113 (SC) I.T.A. No.35/Asr/2023 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 “16. The case of the revenue is that the expression

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

condone the delay. He further argued that the impugned order is passed in violation to the principle laid down in the judgment of hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal reported at 195 ITR 825 (Cal). 7. The Ld. DR for the Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the provisions of Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

139(1) and provident Fund has been deposited before filing the return, there was no occasion in not accepted the plea of the assessee. 6. That the learned CIT (A) should have understood that the provision of section 36(l)(va) as well 43(b) impose a liability on the assessee and therefore cannot be construed to the applicable retrospectively

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SH. NIRBHAY TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

SMT. BANI TREHAN,JAMMU vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in opening of the assessment by recording false reasons under section 148 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in recording reasons on the basis of surmises

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

139(1) which was processed u/s 143(1). Factually it is correct that the processing of return is only basis on same arithmetical adjustment and allowable deduction there is no such application of mind related to documents of the assessee. Respectfully observed the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd, supra

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

139(1) which was processed u/s 143(1). Factually it is correct that the processing of return is only basis on same arithmetical adjustment and allowable deduction there is no such application of mind related to documents of the assessee. Respectfully observed the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd, supra

M/S. PINKU BATRA ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

139(1) which was processed u/s 143(1). Factually it is correct that the processing of return is only basis on same arithmetical adjustment and allowable deduction there is no such application of mind related to documents of the assessee. Respectfully observed the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd, supra