SHRI AMRITPAL SINGH (PROP),JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

delay for 14 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by worthy PCIT -1 is arbitrary, whimsical, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order

DR. S A RASHID,KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KASHMIR

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

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

section 69. The matter is taken for adjudication as below. 5. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee has made the investment Rs.70,95,120/- under the head ‘Deposits and Savings and GPF’ which was reflected in balance sheet. The addition was made by the ld. AO due to lack I.T.A. No.632/Asr/2015 3 Assessment Year: 2002-03 explanation

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

condoned the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 7. The assessee has filed return declaring an income of Rs. 25,08,770/- (APB pg. no. 4-7) and that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an addition of Rs.4,26,748/- (APB pg. no. 66-67). Subsequently, proceedings

PUNNU SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED,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

section 69A can be invoked only when whole of such alleged money, bullion, jewellery, or valuable article has escaped assessment or remains unexplained. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 3. The appeal was filed with a delay of 71 days. The assessee filed

SAINT BABA FATEH SINGH TRUST,BATHINDA vs. EXEMPTION WARD, AMRITSAR

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

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

83 (eighty three) days. He prays for condonation of delay on medical grounds. 3. The ld. D. R. has no objection. Considering the medical issues cited before us, we condone the delay, taking into consideration the medical certificate of Fortis Hospital enclosed as evidence. 4. The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 and his main

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

83,21,928/- relying on the amendment made to 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

SHRI MANJIT SINGH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD , DASUYA

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

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

delay for 17 days is condoned. 4. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was present. On perusal of record, we find that there is no power of attorney with the appeal petition. Mr. K. Bhagat, CA for the assessee filed an adjournment petition before the bench and mentioned that senior counsel who will attend the case

RAHUL KHINDRI,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

condonation of delay. 6. Brief facts of the case, as per the Assessee are as under:- The Assessee Rahul Khindri was an individual during the year under consideration, the Assessee had earned salary income amounting to Rs. 4,78,250/- and income from other sources amounting to Rs. 9,83,834/- which is duly disclosed in the return of income

SHRI ARNESH KUMAR SHAKAR EX. MLA,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, DASUYA

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

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

delay for 683 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That neither in facts nor in law, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in upholding the validity of proceedings, wrongly initiated u/s.148 by the ld. ITO. 2. That sans any order passed by the ITO, giving effect to CIT(A) order for 2007-08, prior

SHRI PANKAJ ARORA ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 (2), SRINAGAR

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

condoning the short delay of 83 days by admitting the appeal on merits with the consent of additional CIT DR in the interest of justice. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing invoked the provisions of section

SHRI PANKAJ ARORA,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD--3 (2), SRINAGAR

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

condoning the short delay of 83 days by admitting the appeal on merits with the consent of additional CIT DR in the interest of justice. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing invoked the provisions of section

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED ,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated

M/S OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated

M/S. OHRI & BATRA SHOWBIZ PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR

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

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

delay of 17 days is condoned. 3. At the outset, the relevant factual backdrops as well as the issue involved in all the cases are identical. We, therefore, the ITA No. 234/Asr/2022 is taken as a lead case. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That the order passed by the Hon’ble CIT (A) dated

SHREE AMAR KSHATRIYA SABHA CHARITABLE TRUST ,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

83,260/- after claiming exemptions u/s 11 and 10(23C), along with a belatedly filed audit report in Form 10B uploaded and approved on the same date. 3.1 The assessment has been completed by CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) on a total income of Rs. 39,49,400/- without allowing the claim for exemptions due to the reasons that

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