MINING OFFICER,MOHALI vs. ITO(TDS)-2, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Appellate Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal. Your Faithfully For Mining Office, Mohali & Ropar (Mining Officer)

Condonation of delay in submission of appeal ITA No. 112/Chandi/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 in the case of Mining Officer versus ITO (TDS

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BAIJNATH vs. ITO(TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BAIJNATH vs. ITO(TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,PARWANOO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BAIJNATH vs. ITO(TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

condone the delay in filing the appeals and proceed to decide them on merit. 7. The common issue involved in all these appeals is whether assessee deserves to be treated as assessee in default ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 7 u/s 201(1) and also liable to interest u/s 201(1A) of the Income

ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

TDS. 5. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to establish that thus order passed totally delay in filing appeal is intentional and wrong and illegal casual approach of appellant. Thus order passed by CIT(A) ignoring correct facts and reasonable cause is totally wrong and illegal. 6. That the order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is not a speaking

RAJESH BANSAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1447/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

TDS return. 2 A.Y.2012-13 The appeal of the assessee is barred by time for three days. A separate application for condonation of delay

M/S N.N. FOREX TRAVEL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT (CPC), TDS, , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

TDS statement in time. 4. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant in limine by holding that the appeal was filed beyond limitation period and there did not exist reasonable cause for condonation of delay

SANJEEV GARG,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 871/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sanjeev Garg, The Ito, House No. 297, Sector 13, Vs Kurukshetra. U.E., Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afspg0180L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Navneet Singal, Ca & Shri Rittun Sahuwala, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 6.1 As far as challenging the re-opening of assessment is concerned, we do not find any merit in it because assessee did not file his return of income and AO has information that a cash deposit of more than Rs.20,45,000/- was made in the Saving Bank

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay, the same is hereby condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 35/Chd/2022 for A.Y 2014-15 , the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay, the same is hereby condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 35/Chd/2022 for A.Y 2014-15 , the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in upholding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

condonation of delay.\n3.\nIt has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name