THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TARN TARAN vs. ESTATE OF LATE SH. JAGIR SINGH BHULLAR, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.306/Asr/2014 & 591/Asr/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Estate Of Sh. Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through S. Jasbir—Singh Ward-1(3), Bhullar, Tarn Taran, E-250 Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab. Punjab.

section 271(1) (c ),respectively, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. Since these two appeals relate to the same assessee and same assessment year, therefore these have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA Nos.306/ASR/2014 & 591/ASR/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Estate

SMT. RAJINDER KAUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1)(c) of the Act dated 10.08.2022 contacted Surinder Mahajan and Associates Chartered Accountants, Jalandhar. Surinder Mahajan and Associates checked e-portal and informed assessee that penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act have been initiated since assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act has been made by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) vide order

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

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

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

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

1. In this case the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010, however the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer has sent the questionnaire along with the statutory notice to the assessee fixing the date of hearing

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

271 (1)c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without giving the reasonable opportunity to be heard to the assessee. 6. That it is prayed that the order of the Assessing

M/S. SHYAM LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER_II,, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

condonation of the delay in applying for the said registration, erstwhile vested with the competent authority w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (by insertion of the second proviso to section 12A(1)(a)). Clearly, therefore, there should be no other impediment - apart from non-registration, for the non allowance of the exemption u/s. 11 and, as a corollary, no change in the objects

M/S SHYMA LAL THAPAR FOUNDATION,MOGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICERII, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

condonation of the delay in applying for the said registration, erstwhile vested with the competent authority w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (by insertion of the second proviso to section 12A(1)(a)). Clearly, therefore, there should be no other impediment - apart from non-registration, for the non allowance of the exemption u/s. 11 and, as a corollary, no change in the objects

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), JALANDHAR vs. DR SHYAM LAL THAPAR NURSING HOME, MOGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 644/(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.A. No. 592/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10

condonation of the delay in applying for the said registration, erstwhile vested with the competent authority w.e.f. 01.06.2007 (by insertion of the second proviso to section 12A(1)(a)). Clearly, therefore, there should be no other impediment - apart from non-registration, for the non allowance of the exemption u/s. 11 and, as a corollary, no change in the objects

SH PARVINDER JIT SINGH BINDRA,JALANDHAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

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

delay of five days in filing the appeal which is condoned in appeal was admitted to be heard on merits. The learned DR for the assessee submitted that the AO has neither made a specific charge in the penalty notice issued under section 274 it was section 271(1)(c

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 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