SHRI KHURSHID AHMED WANI S/O GULAM MOHD WANI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SRINAGAR

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

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

section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 04.12.2019 by the Income tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Srinagar. Due to non receipt of notices by the assessee, the Ld. A.O. has made assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and passed ex-parte order. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Since

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

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

THE ASSOCIATION OF COLON AND RECTAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. CIT EXEMPTION,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned. 6. Since the issues, facts and circumstances involved and submissions of Counsel of the Assessee in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order. 7. The common identical grounds taken by the Assessee in both the appeals are reproduced

THE ASSOCATION OF COLON AND RECTAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,JALANDHAR vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 474 & 475/Asr/2024 The Association Of Colon & बनाम The Cit Rectal Surgeons Of India, Exemption, 408A, Kapurthala Road, Chandigarh Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aakat9866E अपीलाथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्ााररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sushil Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite, Cit Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeals In These Cases Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 21.03.2024, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh.

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned. 6. Since the issues, facts and circumstances involved and submissions of Counsel of the Assessee in both the appeals are similar, they were heard together and are being disposed off by this common and consolidated order. 7. The common identical grounds taken by the Assessee in both the appeals are reproduced

SHRI ARSHAD MOHD MALIK,JAMMU vs. INMCVOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (4), UDHAMPUR

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

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

delay of 239 days is condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was assessed U/s 143(3) and addition was made related to the net profit amount of Rs. 7 lacs, disallowance of deduction u/s 80C amount of Rs.62,500/- and the addition u/s 69C amount of Rs.1,90,330/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

section 69 of the Act. Thus to this extent the impugned addition of Rs.50,90,194/- is legally incorrect and the same deserves to be deleted on this sole ground. . The Authorities Below did not dispute the sale of the Vehicles a sale (c) proceeds etc. as recorded in the Audited Books at any stage in any manner. Thus

BHATIA MEDICOS,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-(3)1_, JALANDHAR

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

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 assessee in Form No. 36 are as follows: “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is against law and facts of the case on the file. 3 I.T.A. No. 688/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. That

THE DALLA CO OP AGRI MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-, PHAGWARA

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dalla Co-Op. Agri Vs. Ito, Ward (1), Multipurpose Society Ltd. C/O Phagwara. B.D. Bansal & Co. B-641, Ground Floor Near A Block Gurudwara Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aacat2201M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lakshay Bansal, Ca Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2026

90 (ninety days). The assessee has filed an application for I.T.A. No. 593/Asr/2025 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 condonation, where the ld. counsel Sh. Tarun Bansal (Advocate) stated that his office staff Mr. Puneet was handling the appeal matter of this assessee and the said Mr Puneet has left the job and it took sufficient time for the Advocate

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

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

LATE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for

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

delay in filing appeal may please be condoned and appeal be admitted for the cause of justice.” 3 I.T.A. No. 50/Asr/2020 Late Sh. Joginder Singh v. ITO 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that based on an AIR information in case of the appellant, the AO stated that the appellant has made a cash deposit

ABDUL RASHID SHAH,HARRAN GANDERBAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-I, SRINAGAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 381/Asr/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abdul Rashid Shah, The Ito, बनाम New Colony Harran, Ward1, Ganderbal, Jammu & Srinagar, Kashmir 191131 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Bmtps6203D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

90,047.00 on account of cash deposited in the bank account out of sale proceeds alleging the same to be income chargeable to tax u/s 69A as unexplained investment without appreciating the facts of the ease and the scope of provisions of above section. 3. That two different approaches have been followed for business receipts during demonetization period

MESERS PEER PANCHAL EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST ,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

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

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

condone the delay of 2 days in my case.” 3.1 Since, there was a short delay of 2 days in filing the appeal 4. The appellant filed an application in form No. 10A in the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to “the PCIT”), on 31.03.2018 seeking registration u/s 12AA of the Income

TEJVIR SINGH MANESS,FARIDKOT PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD 1, FARIDKOT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Udayan Dasguptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 276/Asr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tejvir Singh Maness, Vs Ito, Bx 11/398, Ward 1, No.4, New Harindera Nagar, Faridkot Punjab 151203 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Baspm7258R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Virtual Hearing

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee is a legal practitioner and has filed his return under the deeming provisions of section 44ADA of the Act disclosing professional income @ 50% ( or more) of gross professional receipts for the FY 2016-17. The break

SHRI HARBANS SINGH MANN,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (4), MANSA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.129/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11

delay of 128 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following concise grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice u/s 148 and with regard to reopening of the case. 2. That there was no reason to believe as per the reasons recorded

MEASAGE NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA 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 NARULA SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA 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