SMT KRISHNA DEVI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,HOSHIARPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOE 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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

2. That the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) is wrongly imposed and confirmed by CIT(A). 3. That there were regular changes in the management of the society and previous management was not aware about facts of this case. 4. That the judgements quoted by CIT(A) are not squarely applicable to this case. 5. That the assessee requests

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

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

2. In the outset we advert that ITA NO. 137/ASR/018 was related to the quantum appeal of the assessee. The ITA no. 99/ASR/2018 is related to penalty u/s. 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

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

2. In the outset we advert that ITA NO. 137/ASR/018 was related to the quantum appeal of the assessee. The ITA no. 99/ASR/2018 is related to penalty u/s. 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

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

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

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

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

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

2. That the worthy CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and merely relied on order of the AO and without any rhyme & reason, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty order passed by the AO u/s. 271 AAA of the Income Tax Act. As such order of the CIT(A) is liable to cancelled

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 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) of the act nor in the assessment order. The learned