SHRI RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA,DODA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, UDHAMPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.268/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

delay for255 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi erred in passing the order Under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions and apprehensions, without affording the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. That

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

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

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

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

delay for 30 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed an adjournment petition and assessee was I.T.A. No. 189/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unable to represent the matter because assessee’s counsel for out of state. The issue is well settled

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

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

73 taxman.com 380 (Pune Trib.) has also held that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to levy the fees under section 234E of the Act by way of intimation issued under section 200A of the Act in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015. 5.6 In the case of Sri FatherajSinghvi vs Union of India [2016] reported

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

73,14,377/- (i.e after considering the deferred tax provision of Rs. 2,92,01,795/-). 6. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 03 days wherein, assessee

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

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

condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, on identical facts in ITA No. 107, 108 and 109/Asr/2023, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant assessee is a development authority established under

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, on identical facts in ITA No. 107, 108 and 109/Asr/2023, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant assessee is a development authority established under

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

condone 4 I.T.A. Nos. 107 to 109/Asr/2023 Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) the delay in filing the appeal and admit the captioned five appeals for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, on identical facts in ITA No. 107, 108 and 109/Asr/2023, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant assessee is a development authority established under

SHRI SATBIR SINGH BHULLAR,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

delay for 441 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of reasons recorded after getting approval from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant is an agriculturist and has been declaring agriculture I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2008-09 income consistently in the returns of income

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 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 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 G.H AGRO 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