SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1

SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1

SMT. KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed both being barred by time limitation and on merits also

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

condonation of delay cannot be accepted as the reasons given for the delay of 10 years are without merit. As the proceedings under Section 271(l)(b) have been consequential to a search action u/s 132 which led to notices under Section 153A and 142(1

M/S ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

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

271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition before the bench. The delay was explained by the assessee. Due to wrong advise of consultant, the assessee filed appeal in delay against the order section

MESERS ALFA MECHANICAL & ELECTRICALS ENGINEERING WORKS,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER WARD 3 (1), SRINAGAR

In the result ITA No. 137/ASR/2018 and ITA No

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

271(1)(c) for assessment year 2008-09. The appeal against the penalty was filed with delay of 149 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition before the bench. The delay was explained by the assessee. Due to wrong advise of consultant, the assessee filed appeal in delay against the order section

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

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

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

delay of 198 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the penalty order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala thereby levying penalty of Rs.5,09,784/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) as well as the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar, thereby confirming the penalty order passed

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

MESERS ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR WARD, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

MESERS ARYA MODEL SCHOOL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

M/S ARYA MODEL HIGH SCHOOL,,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

271(1)(c). Both the appeals filed with delay of 18 days. The assessee filed condonation petition before the bench. The ld. DR had not made any objection for condonation of delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the delay of 18 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following ground: “1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 282 of the act 61 (r.w.r. 127 of I T Rules 62). 12. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 290/ASR / 2024 for Asst Year: 2013-14 Penalty matter u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 61; 13. This appeal is time barred by eighteen days. Consideration the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay

SHRI TAJINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BATALA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 282 of the act 61 (r.w.r. 127 of I T Rules 62). 12. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 290/ASR / 2024 for Asst Year: 2013-14 Penalty matter u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 61; 13. This appeal is time barred by eighteen days. Consideration the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

delay of 80 days is condoned, in view of the bonafide reason of the medical ground and accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Pritpal Kaur v. ITO 4. The grounds raised are vague and not specific to issue. However, the assessee’s main grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly imposed penalty of Rs.5000

SHRI HARBANS SINGH MANN,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (4), MANSA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 128 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following concise grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice u/s 148 and with regard to reopening of the case. 2. That there was no reason to believe as per the reasons recorded

SH ADIL KHURSHID BHAT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

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

271(1)(b) dated 27/06/2024 and passed u/s 271F dated 27/06/2024, respectively. 2 I.T.A. Nos. 579 to 581/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 ITA 579/Asr/ 2024: 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC in passing the order under section