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

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

M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

delay is hereby condoned. Appeal is allowed to be heard on merits. 2. The counsel submitted that the appellant assessee is a charitable society registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act where the ld. AO has levied late fee of Rs.12,595/- for filing of TDS return late in respect of financial year 2012-13 under consideration. The counsel

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

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

condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, on identical facts in ITA No. 107, 108 and 109/Asr/2023, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant assessee is a development authority established under

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

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

condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, on identical facts in ITA No. 107, 108 and 109/Asr/2023, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant assessee is a development authority established under

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

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

condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, on identical facts in ITA No. 107, 108 and 109/Asr/2023, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant assessee is a development authority established under