M/S AMAR COACH BUILDERS ,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

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

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 2. That the CIT(A) gravely erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,11,928/- u/s 36(1)(va) made under section 36(1)(va

M/S VARINDRA TOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE,II, JALANDHAR

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

Bench: 03.10.2021. 2. That Necessary Fees Was Deposited Well Before Time I.E. 29.09.2021. 3. That Appeal Was Sent To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar On 30.09.2021 Through Courier Well Before Due Of Date Of Filing Of Appeal. It Was Expected That Courier Will Reach Itat Office Well Before Due Date. However, On Receipt Of Letter, We Have Come To Know That There Is Delay Of 2 Days In Filing Of Appeal. 4. That We Are Enclosing Herewith Copy Of Receipt Of Courier & Track Record In Support Of The Fact That Courier Sent On 30.09.2021 Was Delivered In The Office Of Itat On 05.10.2021 Resulting In Delay Of 2 Days. 5. That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Has Happened Because Of Reasons Beyond Control Of Assessee. Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional.

delay of 2 days in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond its control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has grossly erred in law in confirming addition

M/S GLOBE AUTO ARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- III (4), JALANDHAR

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

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

M/S GLOBE AUTO PARTS REGD.,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-III, JALANDHAR

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

delay of 1 day in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond his control. Therefore the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Since the issues involved are common in both the above appeals and the appeals were heard together, therefore, these are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity

INDU MAHAJAN,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAX CIRCLE-5 , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

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

condoned. 4. The brief fact of case is that the assessee has filed return u/s 139(1) for the impugned assessment year. By passing the audit report of the assessee the return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) and the disallowance was made for late deposit of contribution made in respect of PF & ESI u/s 36 (1) (va

SMT. GURINDER KAUR,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

M/S KOSMO VEHICELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

TILAK UTPADAN PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, Shri Sudhir Mehar, the counsel for the assesses in I.T.A. No. 159/Asr/2022 explained the claim of the appellant and in other appeals written submission were received in support of their claims. Admittedly, the appellants deposited the employees' contribution

KHYBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

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

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

condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a company and filed the return. The addition was made by disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) and the addition of‘Deferred tax provision’ amount of Rs.2,92,01,795/-. The entire addition was made during the processing of return u/s 143(1). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

SHRI ADARSH TICKOO,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SOFTOBIZ TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, JALANDHAR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SAVITRI WOOD PRODUCTS ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SHRI PARMINDER SINGH PROP PHAGWARA GAS SERVICE ,PHAGWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3, PHAGWARA

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

SATYAM CEMENTS,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMMU

In the result, the subject appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

delay in filing appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for merits. 4. At the time of hearing, the counsel for the assesses and written submission explained that admittedly the appellants deposited the employees' contribution to PF & ESI before the due date of filing of the income tax return. It was argued

HINDU CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,PATHANKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIECLE 1), AMRITSAR

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

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

condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT Appeals, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi sustaining an addition of Rs 4,51,294.00/- for non-payment of employees’ share of Employees Provident fund with in due date as provided in the respective statue i.e., u/s Section 36(1 )(va) of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

delay of 53 days is condoned. I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,59,123/-made by the A.O on a/c of payments for provident fund dues^ beyond due date as provided u/s 36(l)(va). As the payments related to employees contribution

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR vs. M/S TRUMBO CEMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the Ground no-1 of the Revenue for ITA No

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

delay of 53 days is condoned. I.T.A. No.123/Asr/2020 The revenue has taken the following grounds: “1. The Ld. CIT (A) Jammu has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,59,123/-made by the A.O on a/c of payments for provident fund dues^ beyond due date as provided u/s 36(l)(va). As the payments related to employees contribution