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

139(9) of the Act, to remove defects in the return and so the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 11 of the Act. Even otherwise, the AO had powers to condone the delay

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.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

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 139(4) of the Act (rws I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 6 Assessment Year: 2020-21 139(4A), which has been accepted and assessed by the AO, CPC Bangalore, u/s 143(1), considering the same to be a valid return. He further submitted that in the instant case, the audit report in Form 10B which was supposed to be have been

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 09.01.2024 The assessee was intimated by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 09.01.2024 that apparently, they had not filed the present application under Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Act in Form No. 10AB, within the due date mentioned under Clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of 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

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

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

SMT. HARVINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I,, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

4, challenging the charge of 5 Harvinder Kaur v. Asstt. CIT interest u/ss. 234A and 234B, before him. The parties were at this stage required to address the Bench on the legal competence of the Tribunal, or for that matter the first appellate authority, to adjudicate a grievance qua the charge of mandatory interest under the said sections. The parties

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

section, the Employer contributionhastobepaidbefore the due date of filing of returnofincome under the Income Tax Act. Since, the assessee has paid the employer contribution before due date of filing of return, the addition made is against the provisions of the law.” 3. The AR mentioned that the appeal is filed with a delay of 88 days. The petition for condonation

JASDEV SINGH,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , BTD, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

condone the delay of I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 386 days, in absence of any communication from the office of the ld. CIT(A) in the e-mail id provided in Form 35. As such, we admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 3. The brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has made cash

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

condoned and the appeal admitted for hearing on merits. Substantial justice is more important than the procedural delay. 3. At the outset, during the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the Bench. 4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That order passed u/s 250 of the Income

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