SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS 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 before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contention and persued the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decision referred

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 before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contention and persued the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decision referred

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 before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contention and persued the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decision referred

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 before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contention and persued the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decision referred

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay of 253 days, in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 15.01.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard

SHRI GAMDOOR SINGH ,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (5), MANSA

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

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

section 68 are not applicable as the assessee appellant has made re- payment of loan taken from the bank against limit. As such addition of Rs. 9,10,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law. The same be deleted. 3 I.T.A. No. 149/Asr/2023 Gamdoor Singh v. ITO 6. That the appellant craves

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253 ITR798] where it was held that in exercising discretion under section 5 of Limitation Act. 1963, to condone delay for sufficient cause is not preferring an appeal or other application within the period prescribed, courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay

SHRI ALTAF HUSAIN SHAH,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), SRINAGAR

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

3 of section 253 of the Act which provides that the appeal can be filed within a period of 60 days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly order was communicated to petitioner on 3rd March 2020 which was received on 5th March

SHRI GULZAR AHMAD DAR ,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

253 of the Act before the Hon'ble Bench on 23/09/2024 . The date of appeal order passed u/s 250 of the Act is 22/07/2024 and date of service is taken as 23/07/2024 and the time of 60 days under normal circumstances expired on 22/07/2024, the appellant posted appeal on 20/09/2024 and the same stand received on 23/07/2024. The appellant posted

RAJIV MEHRA ,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 10 days condoned and the appeal is admitted on merits. 4. The ld. counsel contended that the penalty is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) without application of mind as the ld. Assessing Officer has imposed the penalty by issuing a notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 dated 06.12.2019 without specific charge by striking