BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

condone the delay and admit the appeals on merits. 16. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel invited our attention to para 2 of the order of CIT(E), dated 31.07.2018, wherein the Ld. CIT(E) had ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 10 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT discussed aims and objects of the company

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay in filing appeal is condoned and appeal admitted on merits. 4. The Ld. PCIT observed that the assessment has been finalized by the Assessing Officer, without carrying out the necessary verification regarding source of cash deposited in the Bank account. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in clause (a) of Explanation 2 below sub 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

section 143(2) within time limit prescribed, said order was liable to be set aside - Revenue filed an application for condonation of delay

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

Condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in filing of Return of Income

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that there has been a delay in 967 days in filing both the appeals in ITA Nos. 39 Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT & 40/Asr/2019, as these appeals are filed on 21.01.2019 against the order even dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that there has been a delay in 967 days in filing both the appeals in ITA Nos. 39 Manjit Krishan Malhotra v. Pr.CIT & 40/Asr/2019, as these appeals are filed on 21.01.2019 against the order even dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 263 of the Act by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the CIT Appeal should have given benefit of doubt to assessee and accepted the contention. 3. That basing his decision on misinterpretation of section 36(l)(va) and 43(b) which is observed in retrospectively applicable is legally against the natural justice. 4. That the learned CIT Appeal

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1`, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

delay in filing the appeal before him from 01.04.2014 to 17.07.2014 and the same may please be condoned and appeal may please be heard on merits. 2. That the Assessing Officer has legally erred in law and facts for treating the assessee as a person liable to deduct tax at source under section

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

delay in filing the appeal before him from 01.04.2014 to 17.07.2014 and the same may please be condoned and appeal may please be heard on merits. 2. That the Assessing Officer has legally erred in law and facts for treating the assessee as a person liable to deduct tax at source under section

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

delay in filing the appeal before him from 01.04.2014 to 17.07.2014 and the same may please be condoned and appeal may please be heard on merits. 2. That the Assessing Officer has legally erred in law and facts for treating the assessee as a person liable to deduct tax at source under section

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

condoning the delay and registered the society with retrospective effect. The photocopy of order u/s 12AA has already been filed with our earlier letters. In the Finance Act, 2014, the section 12A of The Income Tax Act has been amended with effect from 01.10.2014 and inserted the following clauses: "Provided that where registration has been granted to the trust

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

THE BHANOKI CO-OP.AGRI.MULTIPUPOSE SOCIETY LTD, ,PHAGWARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ATX , PHAGWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Bleita No. 588/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 The Bhanoki Co-Op, Agri, Vs Dcit, Phagwara Multipurpose Society Ltd., Vpo Bhanoki, Phagwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat0546N Assessee By : Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M.S. Parmar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2019

condon the delay and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 177069/- made by the AO u/s80-P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That CIT(A) while sustaining the disallowing failed to appreciate that the provisions of section

ESTATE OF SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

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

Section 5 and to condone the delay in re-filing the appeal with a certified copy of the order.” Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal V Adm.1972 AIR 749 “It is not possible to lay down precisely as to what facts or matters would constitute 'sufficient cause' under s. 5 of the Limitation