M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

161 ITD 1 (Coch), as well as by the Amritsar Bench of the tribunal per its order in St. Jude’s Convent School & Ors. v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 749/Asr/2013, dated 26.09.2016/copy on record), following the afore-cited decisions by the tribunal. Though the provisos to the sub-section (2) were inserted by Finance

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

161 ITD 1 (Coch), as well as by the Amritsar Bench of the tribunal per its order in St. Jude’s Convent School & Ors. v. Asst. CIT (in ITA No. 749/Asr/2013, dated 26.09.2016/copy on record), following the afore-cited decisions by the tribunal. Though the provisos to the sub-section (2) were inserted by Finance

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

161 Taxmann.com 144 (Bom), where delay in filing audit report beyond due date was condoned because of auditors oversight in considering relevant provisions, Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. (ii) ITO [2023] 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj) wherein the Hon’ble High has held that where the assessee is a public charitable trust registered

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

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

delay of 93 ( ninety three ) days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. The Addl./JCIT(A) has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of DDIT CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1

ABDUL HAMID NACHAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, RAJBAGH

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

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

1, Srinagar dated 18/05/2023 ( AY: 2016- 17), out of the order passed by NFAC (AU) dated 04/12/2023 (AY: 2018-19) and out 2 I.T.A. Nos. 158, 161 and 166/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 of order passed by NFAC) (AU) dated 05/12/2023 ( AY: 2019-20 ), respectively , all passed u/s 147 (r.w.s

ABDUL HAMID NACHAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, RAJBAGH SRINAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

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

1, Srinagar dated 18/05/2023 ( AY: 2016- 17), out of the order passed by NFAC (AU) dated 04/12/2023 (AY: 2018-19) and out 2 I.T.A. Nos. 158, 161 and 166/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 of order passed by NFAC) (AU) dated 05/12/2023 ( AY: 2019-20 ), respectively , all passed u/s 147 (r.w.s

ABDUL HAMID NACHAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, RAJBAGH SRINAGAR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for

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

1, Srinagar dated 18/05/2023 ( AY: 2016- 17), out of the order passed by NFAC (AU) dated 04/12/2023 (AY: 2018-19) and out 2 I.T.A. Nos. 158, 161 and 166/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20 of order passed by NFAC) (AU) dated 05/12/2023 ( AY: 2019-20 ), respectively , all passed u/s 147 (r.w.s

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.3 However, we find that negligence on the part of the Secretary of the assessee society and his counsel cannot be ruled out and this is a fit case for imposition of costs and considering the fact that the appellant is an agricultural Multipurpose cooperative society, we impose

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in Form No. 36 are as follows (which is not concise in terms of Rule – 8 of ITAT Rules ’63): “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition