Search: condonation of delay

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 276clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 26316 Section 271D8 Section 269S6 Section 105 Condonation of Delay4 Section 143(1)3 Section 2502 Section 722 Section 32(2)2 Penalty2

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PUNJAB vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS )CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 343/ASR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal & Sh. A.K. Periwal, C.A

Section 10

condone the delay: (i) MANOJ AHUJA (MINOR) & ANR. vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, reported in 150 ITR 696. (ii) Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions (P) Ltd. Vs CIT, reported in 95 ITR (Trib.) 0456 (Amritsar) 5 I.T.A. No.343/Asr/2024 Maharishi Dayanand Education Society v. CIT (iii) C.G. PAUL & CO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1TAT, COCHIN BENCH, reported in 52 ITD 276

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

delay of 93 ( ninety three ) days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. The Addl./JCIT(A) has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of DDIT CPC, Bangalore