THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 2.3 However, we find that negligence on the part of the Secretary of the assessee society and his counsel cannot be ruled out and this is a fit case for imposition of costs and considering the fact that the appellant is an agricultural Multipurpose cooperative society, we impose

MR. CHARAT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.577/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

56 days was not intentional and wilful and was due to non-availability of competent persons and the same being unintentional, he prays for condonation of the delay and admission of the appeal for deciding on merits. The Ld. DR has no objection. The delay being not intentional on the part of the assesse the same is condoned

SHOWKAT SHAFI, S.O. MOHAMMAD YATOO, YATOO MANZIL NAGAM CHADOORA BUDGAM,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing the order ex-parte and has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer without giving any decisions on the merits

SMT..ANURADHA,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), PATHANKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. That on the facts & in circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer & dismissing the appeal. 2. That

BASHARAT SALEEM REHTOO,SRINAGAR vs. DCIT, ACIT CENT. CIRCLE , SRINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The CIT(A); erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 700000/- made by the AO u/s 69A on account of cash found/ seized during the requisition u/s 132A on 03.12.2018. The order passed

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ABOHAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ABOHAR vs. RAJ KUMAR, ABOHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 4. Grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in Form No. 36 are as follows (which is not concise in terms of Rule – 8 of ITAT Rules ’63): “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

S.S. JAIN SABHA GOLF LINK, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, JALANDHAR

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. In course of hearing, there has not been any appearance by the assessee or his ld. counsel on repeated calls neither physically nor in virtual mode. However, considering the grounds of appeal and the issues involved, we proceed to dispose of this appeal after hearing

MESERS CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year: 2011-12

delay of 185 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned but subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- in the Income Tax Department within 30 days of this order, as the assessee has voluntarily offered and agreed. 5. The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee by way of this appeal challenged the impugned order on following

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account

M/S NARULA OIL & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHEMDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account

MEASAGE SAT KARTAR SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account

M/S NARULA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. ITA No.58/Asr/2020 A.Y. 2012-13. 3.1 The revenue has taken the following grounds which are extracted as below: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 6,62,27,272/- to Rs. 2,73,53,991/- on account