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

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

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being\nthrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the\nhighest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.\n(5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

143(3) r.w.s 144B, vide order dated 06.05.2021. 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry that this appeal is belatedly filed by 90 (ninety days). The assessee has filed an application for I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 condonation, where the ld. counsel Sh. Tarun Bansal (Advocate) stated that his office staff Mr. Puneet

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

2. It could be seen from the above that the appellant has no valid reason for such a huge delay. On one hand the appellant claims that it came to know about the order u/s 143(1) only when there was call for the demand but on the other hand it is fairly admitted in form 35 that the demand

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation, we condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation, we condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation, we condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

2. There was a short delay of 3 days in filing these before the Tribunal. Considering the genuine reason for the shot Delay of 3 days in filing these appeals and no objection of learned additional CIT DR to the request of the assessee condonation, we condone the short delay of 3 days and these four appeals are admitted

GURPREET SINGH KHURANA,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD 1(5), JALANDHAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

143(3). Condonation of delay; 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the appeal before us. The ld. AR has submitted an application for condonation of delay which is reproduced as below: I.T.A. No. 539/Asr/2024 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 That the appeal filed before the Hon'ble Bench

SHER-E- KASHMIR COLLAGE OF EDUCATION ( UNIT OF ) PIR PANCHAL EDUCATION TRUST,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , JAMMU

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

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

143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. No. 190/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 2. The appeal of the assessee was filed with delay of 3080 days. The assessee filed the petition for condonation of delay withthe affidavit. The assessee also relied of the order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of M.K. Hotels & Resorts Ltd. vs. ACIT

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

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD 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,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,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,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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,68,15,000/- made on account of long term capital gain on sale of residential land

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account