SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 200(A) effective from 1st June, 2015 enabling the Assessing Officer to levy fee u/s 234E. 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting the order and for condonation of delay

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

section 200(A) effective from 1st June, 2015 enabling the Assessing Officer to levy fee u/s 234E. 7. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supporting the order and for condonation of delay

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

condoning the delay of 169 days, despite the assessee's mental distress during the period. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal by passing order under section 250 without considering that the appeal related to the quantum, on which the penalty was imposed, is still pending before the CIT. I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 3 Assessment Year

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

section 200A of the Act as the enabling provision was not present. In the present case, TDS Quarterly statements were filed after 01/06/2015. Thus, the AO was correct in levy of fee u/s 200A of the I T Act. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the intimations issued by CPC (TDS). Therefore, all the grounds

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

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

delay for 30 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed an adjournment petition and assessee was I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unable to represent the matter because assessee’s counsel for out of state. The issue is well settled

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

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

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

200 in reply dated 22.12.2016. However, the ld. ITO failed to recollect this fact while framing the order. The Hon’ble CIT (A) has remained Silent (Not Commented upon at all) on this Ground of Appeal. 3. The assessee had mailed in reply dated 28.12.2016 along with copy of ledger account of withdrawals of the assessee in which an amount

SHRI SAROOP HARI,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

delay for 358 days is condoned. 4. The brief fact of case is that as per the ld. AR the assessee basically a holy and virtuous person, has been surviving on dole received from his admirers during religious discourses beside a meagre income generated from running a small business of general merchandise in his village Nadali. Though not a regular

SHRI AJAY BALI ,SAMBA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , SAMBA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.245/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

delay of 40 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Assessment Order dated 18/12/2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, WardSamba u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi thereby confirming the order

S.S. JAIN SABHA GOLF LINK, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. In course of hearing, there has not been any appearance by the assessee or his ld. counsel on repeated calls neither physically nor in virtual mode. However, considering the grounds of appeal and the issues involved, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing

SH. INDERJEET SINGH ARORA,BATHINDA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATHINDA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

delay was accordingly condoned and the hearing in the matter proceeded with. 2 Inderjeet Singh Arora v. ITO 3. The appeal raises two inter-related issues. The facts of the case, which are simple and undisputed, are that the assessee, a sweet meat manufacturer (halwai), filed his return of income for the relevant year at Rs.1,09,950/-, including

SH. SHAM LAL,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

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

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

condonation of delay in filing the belated appeal. 4. That the worthy CIT(A) should have allowed an opportunity of being heard to the assessee for filing the belated appeal. The Learned Chandigarh Bench has taken this view that the CIT(A) must allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in filing the belated appeal. This view

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

condonation application dated 11.10.2016 explains the delay as on account of the assessee having moved an application u/s. 154 before the ld. CIT(A) immediately on the receipt of the impugned order on 04.04.2016, praying that the addition could not be at Rs.14.20 2 Jaspal Singh v. ITO lacs, as confirmed, as the same, representing the price of the shop

M/S. NORTHERN STEEL INDUSTRIES,,SRINAGAR (KMR) vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRINAGAR (J&K)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 430/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

condonation petition dated 26.06.2014, which states of serious indisposition and hospitalization as the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The same is neither evidenced nor accompanied by an affidavit. The ground is however found reasonable, with the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also, I must say fairly, not raising any serious objection thereto. The appeal was accordingly admitted