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

GURU TEG BAHADUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,JALANDHAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted on merits. 5. The CIT(Exemptions), Chandigarh vide order dated 26.03.2018 rejected the assesse application for registration u/s 12A. Aggrieved by the order of the department, the applicant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Amritsar. However, the Hon’ble ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee

M/S MEHTA INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION ,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD (EXEMPTION), JALANDHAR

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

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

delay of 8 days in filing appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is allowed to be heard on merit. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil after claiming exemption u/s 10(23C) (iii) (ad) of the I.T. Act, 1961. During

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

BASHARAT SALEEM REHTOO,SRINAGAR vs. DCIT, ACIT CENT. CIRCLE , SRINAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 4. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee in form 36 are as follows: “1. The CIT(A); erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 700000/- made by the AO u/s 69A on account of cash found/ seized during the requisition u/s 132A on 03.12.2018. The order passed

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

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