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

ROYAL FURNISHER ,JAMMU vs. ASSESING OFFICER WARD- 2 (2), JAMMU

In the result appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

condoned. 4. Tersely we advert the fact of the case. The addition was made for delayed payment of PF and ESI amount of Rs. 4,16,169/-before the close of the financial year and Rs.71,818/- on 18.04.2018 related to EPF payable. The assessee filed an I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 appeal before

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

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

ISHAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELPOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

delay of 93 ( ninety three ) days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Form No. 36 are as under: “1. The Addl./JCIT(A) has erred on facts and law in confirming the action of DDIT CPC, Bangalore

SMT. HARVINDER KAUR,KAPURTHALA vs. A.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I,, JALANDHAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 328/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

84 (Bom) (copy on record). 7. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The first issue that confronts us is as to the legal competence of the tribunal (as an appellate authority under the Act) to adjudicate qua the levy of interest u/ss. 234A and 234B, held as compensatory and mandatory by the Apex Court

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

M/S BINDRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,FEROZEPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, FEROZEPUR

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.190/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

delay for 02 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That, the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) vide orders dated 21.07.2022 is illegal, uncalled for and against the law & facts. 2. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has sustained the additions merely on conjectures and surmires without

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BRAR,KOTKAPURA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

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

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

delay of 334 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr. CIT, Bathinda erred in revising the assessment order Dated 14.12.2018 passed by the AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue

SMT. PRITPAL KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), JALANDHAR

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

delay of 80 days is condoned, in view of the bonafide reason of the medical ground and accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3 Pritpal Kaur v. ITO 4. The grounds raised are vague and not specific to issue. However, the assessee’s main grievance is that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly imposed penalty of Rs.5000