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 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

condonation of delay in filing appeal observing that it appears to be only due to lax approach and nothing but gross negligence and inaction without appreciating the fact that assessee is uneducated agriculturists living in a small village of backward area of Mansa District and unaware of the technicalities for e-verification for appeal is against humanity and natural justice

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

HINDVEE SMALL FINANCE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

68 of the Act were incorrectly invoked in the present case to make the impugned addition of Rs.50,90,194/-. In fact under these provisions, the additions are warranted on account of the un-explained cash credits only, whereas in the present case it is a case of acquisition of un-explained money within the meaning of section

BHAGAT PARKASH KAMAL SHARMA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1), JAMMU

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

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

68 amount of Rs.67,32,000/- and addition of short-term capital gain for sale of land related to 1/3 share of the assessee amount of Rs.21 lacs. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had rejected the appeal of the assessee without considering the ground, only on point of limitation

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

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

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

delay of 198 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the penalty order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala thereby levying penalty of Rs.5,09,784/- u/s 271 (1 )(c) as well as the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar, thereby confirming the penalty order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,68,15,000/- made on account of long term capital gain on sale of residential land

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

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

delay of 740 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together, and disposed of together. ITA No. 90/Asr/2022is taken as lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself

SHRI SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

delay of 740 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together, and disposed of together. ITA No. 90/Asr/2022is taken as lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself

SHRI NAVRAJ SINGH S/O SHRI. SURJIT SINGH,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NAWANSHAHAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 89 To 91/Asr/2022 Assessment Years: 2000-01, 1999-2000 & 2000-01

delay of 740 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, all the appeals are under the same factual backdrop and have a common issue. All the appeals are taken together, heard together, and disposed of together. ITA No. 90/Asr/2022is taken as lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: 1. That the Id CIT(A) misdirected herself

SHRI ALLAH RAKHA,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KATHUA

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

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

section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions and apprehensions, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. 2. That the Learned CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi has erred both in law as well as on facts by dismissing the appeal of the Appellant unheard

SANGAM TRADERS 60-GOLDEN AVENUE SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT,PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PATHANKOT SAILI ROAD PATHANKOT, PATHANKOT

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

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

68 and 69A, on account of unsecured loans, unexplained cash deposits and capital introduction, etc.). 4. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) without admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits due to the reasons that the appeal has been belatedly filed by 209 (two hundred nine) days

RAJ KUMAR & CO,NAWANSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

condone the delay of 253 days, in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) dated 15.01.2024 is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That having regard

SHRI ABDUL HAMID KHAN,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

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

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

delay for 8 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 144 with addition amount of Rs.1,20,02,247/- for depositing cash in the bank account of the assessee. The entire amount was taken as unexplained /undisclosed source of income for the impugned assessment year and addition was made u/s 68

MESSEAG. ZUM ZUM HARDWARE.,SRINAGAR vs. IBNCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.242/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08

delay for 62 days is condoned. 5. Brief fact of the case is thatthe assessee is a hardware merchant and declared the gross profit @ .035% and net profit @ .001% in impugned assessment year. Due to the too low net profit the ld. AO enhanced the net profit @ 2.5% by comparing others trader in same locality, M/s Quazi Brothers. Further

PANKAJ AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,G.T ROAD, MOGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

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

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

section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. So, the additions of Rs. 80,00,000.00 made by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and must be deleted. 7 (v) The assessee craves leave to argue on any other question of law and/or facts at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Condonation of delay