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

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 for assessment year 2018- 19 requires the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant as defined under section (2) of section 288 and file

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

5. The ld. DR had no objection to the condonation of delay. 6. Brief facts of the case, as per the Assessee are as under:- The Assessee Rahul Khindri was an individual during the year under consideration, the Assessee had earned salary income amounting to Rs. 4,78,250/- and income from other sources amounting

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

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 5. The CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh vide order dated 26.03.2018 rejected the assesse application for registration u/s 12A. Aggrieved by the order of the department, the applicant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar. However, the Hon’ble ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee

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

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

5. Now the assessee is before the tribunal on the ground contained in the memorandum of appeal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the return and the audit report, both has been filed together on 25th March 2021, during covid period when the period of limitation was extended by TOLA ( Taxation and other laws [ Relaxation and Amendment

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

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

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

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

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI GULZAR AHMAD DAR ,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of trading of construction material (iron, cement & other related items) as wholesaler & retailer during the financial year 2015-16. In this case, the AO had information that the assessee had deposited cash

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

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay of 253 days, in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 15.01.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard

INDERJIT KAUR,NAKODAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, NAKODAR, NAKODAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay of 146 days in absence of any willful default or neglect on her part. 9. She further submitted a copy of Form No. 26AS and a computation of income and the copy of the income tax return filed as evidence that the amount earned by her amounting to Rs.9,16,995/- from surrender of Life Insurance Policy