THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

253 of the\r\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of\r\nconvenience and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesseee is aggrieved\r\nby the common order bearing number ITBA/APL/M/2019-\r\n20/1021304437(1) dt. 25/11/2019 of CIT(A) Shimla, H.P. passed u/s 250 of\r\nthe Act which is hereinafter referred

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of\nconvenience and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesseee is aggrieved\nby the common order bearing number ITBA/APL/M/250/2019-\n20/1021304437(1) dt. 25/11/2019 of CIT(A) Shimla, H.P. passed u/s 250 of\nthe Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The\nrelevant assessment

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue is aggrieved by the order no. ITBA/FAC/250/2022- 23/1044150537(1) dt. 22/07/2022 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, bearing order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2022 dt. 27/03/2023 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. The impugned order has revised the AO’s order no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3) 2020-21/1027309634(1) dt. 12/06/2020 which is hereinafter referred

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A. Further scrutiny of the case records revealed that as per profit & loss account, total expenditure was Rs. 1,40,14,722/- (expenditure on interest was only 11053024) against expenditure of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- on interest alone. This expenditure

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. The Appellant was a partnership firm engaged as commission agent of food grains. The Appellant sells the agricultural produce to the Government Agencies and Trade Associations as a commission agent and receives

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The relevant assessment year is 2019-20, the corresponding previous year is the Financial Year 2018-19 i.e. 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing number ITBA/Rev 5/2023- 24/1061725348 (1) dated

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income-tax Act." 8.1 Furthermore we may point out that

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

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

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section