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

SHRI GHULAM NABI DAND ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

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

condone the delay of 180 Days, and dismiss this appeal of the appellant as barred by limitation. In view of the above discussion appeal is rendered as inadmissible.” 7. Now, the assessee is before the Tribunal on various grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal and one of the main grievance of the assessee is that he has not been

SHRI AMRIT PARKASH SEHGAL (HUF),JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the Act was not appealable before this Tribunal since he was not advised by his Tax Consultant about this legal right. Later on, when a Senior Lawyer advised assessee to file an appeal, the assessee immediately took steps to file the appeal. Therefore, the delay caused. We note that delay was because of the wrong advice

M/S CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

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

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

delay for 122 days is condoned and appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- lLudhianaand Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I Jammu have erred in law and facts of the case. In any case they have not applied their mind to the actual facts

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

SH.ARUN NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

delay in filling of the appeals under consideration stands condoned. 6. In ITA no. 127/ASR/2019 , the assessee had filed his original return of income by declaring a net income amounting to Rs.4,07,000/- on dated 30.03.2011 which was processed and completed by the Revenue Department on dated 23.11.2011 u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a search was carried

SH. ARUN NARULA,AMRITSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , AMRITSAR

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Saini

delay in filling of the appeals under consideration stands condoned. 6. In ITA no. 127/ASR/2019 , the assessee had filed his original return of income by declaring a net income amounting to Rs.4,07,000/- on dated 30.03.2011 which was processed and completed by the Revenue Department on dated 23.11.2011 u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a search was carried

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

section 36(1) (va) by Finance Act, 2021 holding the same to be clarificatory ignoring the fact that the said amendment was applicable prospectively i.ew.e.fAsessment Year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years only. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the calculation of book profit u/s 115JB (for MAT calculation) at Rs. 16,65

SH.RAMESH KUMAR MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

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

delay of 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: “1) That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not justified in treating the Assessee as Assessee in default for non-collection of tax at source on sale of scrap. 2) That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

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.G H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR 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

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 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 G H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR 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

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

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 G. H AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AMRITSAR 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