M.K HOTELS & RESORTS LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

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

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

29- 12-2003, until June, 2008. The Supreme Court held that unless that fact was to be refuted by the Revenue, question of disbelieving stand taken by assessee on affidavit, could not arise and for which reason, High Court should have shown sympathy to assessee by condoning delay in filing concerned appeal(s).” Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SUMAN CHHABRA,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU AND KASHMIR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

29 days and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as below: “1. The CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 270A in imposing a penalty of Rs. 1232082/- and dismissing

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

AMARJOT SINGH,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

AMARJOT SINGH,VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR G T ROAD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

AMARJOT SINGH VILLAGE BABEHALI DISTT GURDASPUR,GURDASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD GURDASPUR, GURDASPUR

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

section 44AB of the Act, 1961. However, since we have remanded the quantum appeal back to the files of the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication on merits of the case, we also deem it fit and proper to remand this penalty appeal u/s 271B back to the ld. first appellate authority to decide the matter in tandem with

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

29 & 30/Asr/2021 deserves to be deleted as return were processed before the amendment brought in by the Finance Act in 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

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

29 & 30/Asr/2021 deserves to be deleted as return were processed before the amendment brought in by the Finance Act in 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

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

29 & 30/Asr/2021 deserves to be deleted as return were processed before the amendment brought in by the Finance Act in 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

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

29 & 30/Asr/2021 deserves to be deleted as return were processed before the amendment brought in by the Finance Act in 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

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

condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021. The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions 16. were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated

VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

section 115BAC is denied to the assessee, then, in such a case, the assessee is entitled to avail deduction under chapter VI-A of the income tax act 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the form 10 IE and revised return filed on 25.03.2022 without considering the fact that it was filed before

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

M/S. GOLDEN TULIP HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

delay is condoned, and appeal is admitted for hearing on merits of the case. 6. Briefly the facts are that the assesee the assessee was engaged in construction activity. The AO stated that that the payments which are received through banking channel only relates to it and the payments made in cash by Sh. Abdul Majeed Sheikh to various parties

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS ,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

delay is condoned as the number of days are negligible. 9. During the hearing with the additional ground, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed the approval u/s 153D bearing no. F.No.JCIT/CR/Jal/2018- 19/993 dated 26.12.2018: I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 29 & Others Group of cases I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 30 & Others Group of cases 10. The ld. Counsel vehemently

MEASAGE GURU NANAK MILK PRODUCTS,FEROZEPUR CANTT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the particular issue u/s 153C of the Act related in ITA

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

delay is condoned as the number of days are negligible. 9. During the hearing with the additional ground, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed the approval u/s 153D bearing no. F.No.JCIT/CR/Jal/2018- 19/993 dated 26.12.2018: I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 29 & Others Group of cases I.T.A. Nos. 436 & 437/Asr/2018 30 & Others Group of cases 10. The ld. Counsel vehemently