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

section 12A and 80G of the Act, which were followed up by another set of applications filed directly with the DIT (Exemptions) on 21.12.2005; these applications were obviously delayed and the condonation application was filed on 14.03.2006 narrating the events that led to the delay. . In the above circumstances, it seems to us that the Tribunal has acted judicially, taking

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

section 12A and 80G of the Act, which were followed up by another set of applications filed directly with the DIT (Exemptions) on 21.12.2005; these applications were obviously delayed and the condonation application was filed on 14.03.2006 narrating the events that led to the delay. . In the above circumstances, it seems to us that the Tribunal has acted judicially, taking

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the application must not only show as to why he did not file the appeal on the last day of limitation but he must explain each days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has failed to explain the delay in filing of appeal after getting instructions from the head office on 26.06.2014. Moreover

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

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

condonation of delay.\n6.\nBrief facts of the case as per the order of the Addl. CIT(A) is as\nunder:-\n\"The appellant is an individual and has filed its\nreturn\nof income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 25/03/2022 (revised\nreturn) showing taxable income of Rs. 12,65,180/-.\nThe Assessing Officer vide order

SANT BABA BODHA NANAD GAUSHALLA COMMITTEE,MANSA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sant Baba Bodha Nand Gaushalla The Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh, Committee/Aop (Trust) C/O-J. K. Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-17-E, Gupta, Advocate 4702, Hospital Vs Chandigarh-160017 Bazar, Bathinda, (Punjab)-151005 Pan-Aaits0667H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri J. K. Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr

condoning the delay, if such provision is provided in the Act while considering any issue for adjudication. Therefore, considering the above proposition, we are of the view that ld. CIT (Exemption) has rightly rejected the application of the assessee for grant of approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. All these three appeals are rejected

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,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,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

HEMOPHILLA SOCIETY OF KASHMIR,SRINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal against the rejection for registration u/s 80G(5), is also

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

section 282 of the Act 61 (read with Rule 127 of IT Rules 62). Apart from notices issued in ITBA Portal, the notice issued through speed post is stated by the assessee to have not been received (without any specific reasons). Moreover, we find that the notice issued by the Ld CIT (E) dated 26th 10. September, 2023, has been

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021. The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions 16. were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated

SUMAN CHHABRA,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 270A. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.” 4. The brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee has filed his return declaring a total income of Rs. 3,40,490/- and on the basis of information gathered

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

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the Act was not appealable before this Tribunal since he was not advised by his Tax Consultant about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised assessee to file an appeal, the assessee immediately took steps to file the appeal. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that delay was because of the wrong advice

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