VEENA KHINDRI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

condonation of delay.\n6.\nBrief facts of the case as per the order of the Addl. CIT(A) is as\nunder:-\n\"The appellant is an individual and has filed its\nreturn\nof income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 25/03/2022 (revised\nreturn) showing taxable income of Rs. 12,65,180/-.\nThe Assessing Officer vide order

AMANDIP SIINGH,HOUSE NO. NEAR NEHAR PATTI vs. ITO WARD 1, TARN TARAN, ITO WARD , TARN TARAN SARHALI ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

92, Near Nehar, Village Uboke (Baik) Patti, Distt Tarn Taran PAN : EBNPS9539A - Assessment Year 2013-14 This is to bring to your honor's kind notice the following facts for consideration with a request to condone the delay in the filing of appeal against the order of CIT(A):- 1. That order u/s 250 was passed by the Id.CIT

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

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

delay of 967 days in filing these appeals is hereby condoned and appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has observed that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Tirath Ram Badri Nath, Abohar in respect of AY 2008-09, AO has noted that the appellant Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra

SMT. PARMINDER KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

condoning the delay in the open court to the CIT (DR) and directed the parties to make submissions on the merit of the case and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2021. The A.R. for the assessee had submitted that the additions 16. were made by the Assessing Officer made on the photo copy of a forged agreement to sell dated

SHOWKAT SHAFI, S.O. MOHAMMAD YATOO, YATOO MANZIL NAGAM CHADOORA BUDGAM,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

92 days and he prayed for condonation of delay for admission of appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The ld. DR has no objection. 4. Considering the contents of the affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in form 36 are as follows

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (2), MUKTSAR vs. AJAIB SINGH, VILLAGE BHARU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 354/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 3. The grounds of appeal in Form No. 36 are as under: “(i) On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.3,68,15,000/- made on account of long term capital gain on sale of residential land

RIMMI MARWAHA,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The above assessee has filed written request for withdrawal of the appeal due to the reasons that they have filed application under “Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024”, for settlement of disputes relating to tax arrears, in respect of the assessment year stated above. 4. Documentary evidence in Form-2 (rule

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

92 18400.00 4th 26Q 15.05.2018 19.06.2018 02.07.2018 19 3800.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF LATE FEE Rs 25,200/- Gulmarg Development Authority v. ITO(TDS) 3. Thus, TDS-CPC has imposed a late fee u/s 234E amounting to Rs. 25,200/- for the delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statements in the intimations issued u/s 200A of the Act, for various quarters

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

condoned. 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is a company and filed the return. The addition was made by disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) and the addition of‘Deferred tax provision’ amount of Rs.2,92,01,795/-. The entire addition was made during the processing of return u/s 143(1). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY CMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

SHRI AMAR NATH CHOUDHARY,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRA L CIRCLE, JAMMU

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

section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 merely on assumptions, presumptions, surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the factual, legal and statutory position of the Law and facts of the case. Amar Nath Choudhary v. Dy. CIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming 10% of the total

SH. VISHWA MITTER SEKHRI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BATALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), AMRITSAR.

In the result the 2nd ground raised by the assessee is liable to be allowed

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 75/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08

section and without getting registration u/s 12AA of the Income tax Act, 1961. The summary of the Income and Expenditure A/c is as under: Total Receipt Rs. 2,66,67,690/- Total expenditure Rs. 1,62,92,330/- Excess of income over expenditure Rs. 1,03,75,360/- I have, therefore reasons to believe that the income