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

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

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

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

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

THE ASSOCATION OF COLON AND RECTAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned. 6. Since the issues, facts and circumstances involved and submissions of Counsel of the Assessee in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order. 7. The common identical grounds taken by the Assessee in both the appeals are reproduced

THE ASSOCIATION OF COLON AND RECTAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. CIT EXEMPTION,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned. 6. Since the issues, facts and circumstances involved and submissions of Counsel of the Assessee in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order. 7. The common identical grounds taken by the Assessee in both the appeals are reproduced

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

THE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA vs. M/S. SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

SUKHMANI SOCIETY FOR CITIZEN SERVICES,BATHINDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessees’ appeal is allowed, and the Revenue’s appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 141/(Asr)/2014 Assessment Year:

condoning the delay in filing the application and registration granted by the prescribed authority the AO may allow the exemption according to law.’ We, in principle, agree with the Revenue that the ld. CIT could not have exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the law has to take its course. However, as we see it, his observation is only

MESERS PEER PANCHAL EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST ,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

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

condone the delay of 2 days in my case.” 3.1 Since, there was a short delay of 2 days in filing the appeal 4. The appellant filed an application in form No. 10A in the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to “the PCIT”), on 31.03.2018 seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Income

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

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. 7. Following grounds have been raised in ITA No.99/Asr/2021 read as under:. 1. That on facts and circumstances

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

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. 7. Following grounds have been raised in ITA No.99/Asr/2021 read as under:. 1. That on facts and circumstances

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

delay for 3080 days is condoned. I.T.A. No. 190/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the order of Learned CIT(A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable in law. 2. That the worthy