BAHUDER KE TEXTILES AND KNITWEARS ASSOCIATION,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTION ) , CHANDIGARH

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

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

3) -151: TC3R.874 dissented from” 14. In the case of ‘Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) on the identical facts condoned delay of 665 days by relying upon ITA Nos. 501 & 86/Asr/2019&2020 8 Bahadur Ke Textiles & Knitwear Association v. CIT the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Bench in para

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI DHARAM SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA,LUDHIANA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

3 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) has erred in law and not doubted on explanation and conclusive evidences related to the activities and other documents produced before her during the proceedings but she brushed aside all explanations and evidences without any specific reason which is blatant disregard to the spirit of principle of natural justice

BHAI DAYA SINGH JI BHAI HIMMAT SINGH JI NISHKAM SATSANG SABHA THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

Accordingly. 22. In the combined result, both appeals (ITA No.728 & 732/SRT/2023) are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

3 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) has erred in law and not doubted on explanation and conclusive evidences related to the activities and other documents produced before her during the proceedings but she brushed aside all explanations and evidences without any specific reason which is blatant disregard to the spirit of principle of natural justice

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

condoned and appeal may please be heard on merits. 2. That the Assessing Officer has legally erred in law and facts for treating the assessee as a person liable to deduct tax at source under section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of section 194C are not applicable on the facts of our case. 3. That the appellant seeks

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1`, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

condoned and appeal may please be heard on merits. 2. That the Assessing Officer has legally erred in law and facts for treating the assessee as a person liable to deduct tax at source under section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of section 194C are not applicable on the facts of our case. 3. That the appellant seeks

PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeals filed are allowed for statistical purpose

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

condoned and appeal may please be heard on merits. 2. That the Assessing Officer has legally erred in law and facts for treating the assessee as a person liable to deduct tax at source under section 194C of Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of section 194C are not applicable on the facts of our case. 3. That the appellant seeks

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

Condonation of delay Before the JCIT Appeal: 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on limitation grounds for the above said assessment years. He explained that the appeals were delayed by 1850, 1668, 1436 and 9 days before the Ld. JCIT (A) in respect of Appeal

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

Condonation of delay Before the JCIT Appeal: 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on limitation grounds for the above said assessment years. He explained that the appeals were delayed by 1850, 1668, 1436 and 9 days before the Ld. JCIT (A) in respect of Appeal

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

Condonation of delay Before the JCIT Appeal: 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on limitation grounds for the above said assessment years. He explained that the appeals were delayed by 1850, 1668, 1436 and 9 days before the Ld. JCIT (A) in respect of Appeal

LATE SH BHAGAT CHAJJU RAM MEMORIAL TRUST,JAMMU vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing)

Condonation of delay Before the JCIT Appeal: 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on limitation grounds for the above said assessment years. He explained that the appeals were delayed by 1850, 1668, 1436 and 9 days before the Ld. JCIT (A) in respect of Appeal

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

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

3), Chandigarh Bench in ITA No. 958/Chd/2014 vide order dated 17.03.2016 condoned the delay of 625 days by observing as under: “It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases that in the matter of condonation of delay, a liberal and pragmatic view should be taken by the Courts. Further, it is also

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

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

3), Chandigarh Bench in ITA No. 958/Chd/2014 vide order dated 17.03.2016 condoned the delay of 625 days by observing as under: “It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases that in the matter of condonation of delay, a liberal and pragmatic view should be taken by the Courts. Further, it is also

PUNNU SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 5 (4), AMRITSAR

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

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

3) which was challenged by assessee - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer, who had jurisdiction over assessee, passed impugned assessment order without issuing notice under section 143(2) within time limit prescribed, said order was liable to be set aside - Revenue filed an application for condonation of delay

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

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

condonation of delay.\n6.\nBrief facts of the case as per the order of the Addl. CIT(A) is as\nunder:-\n\"The appellant is an individual and has filed its\nreturn\nof income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 25/03/2022 (revised\nreturn) showing taxable income of Rs. 12,65,180/-.\nThe Assessing Officer vide order

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

3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.” 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee mentioned the reason of delay that the delay was due to non-receiving of intimation by the assessee. It may be served to the assessee’s E-mail which was duly maintained by the accountant and the said accountant had not informed

VOLUNTARY MEDCARE SOCIETY,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS) WARD , JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 173/193/2019-ITA-1 dated 23/4/2019 and CBDT Circular No-6/2020 dated 19/02/2020. The delay for filing the return and Form 10B are condoned by the CBDT on this Circular. 4. The ld. AR relied on the section

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

3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made, why not every hour's delay, every second's delay. The doctrine must be applied on a rational commonsense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

AMANDIP SIINGH,HOUSE NO. NEAR NEHAR PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD , TARN TARAN SARHALI ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

condone the delay of 183 days and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case:- In this case, on the basis of information from the DIT(I&CI), Chandigarh that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,35,99,000/- in his bank account with HDFC Bank, Fazilka, the case of the assessee was reopened vide