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

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

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

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

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

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 allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of convenience and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesseee is aggrieved by the common order bearing number ITBA/APL/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) dt. 25/11/2019 of CIT(A) Shimla, H.P. passed u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant assessment

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

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)

5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is also required to be viewed in the same manner. According to Hon'ble Delhi High Court this again is a proviso intended to benefit the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the second proviso to 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)

5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is also required to be viewed in the same manner. According to Hon'ble Delhi High Court this again is a proviso intended to benefit the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the second proviso to 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)

5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is also required to be viewed in the same manner. According to Hon'ble Delhi High Court this again is a proviso intended to benefit the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the second proviso to 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)

5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is also required to be viewed in the same manner. According to Hon'ble Delhi High Court this again is a proviso intended to benefit the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the second proviso to Section

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)

5. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that insertion of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is also required to be viewed in the same manner. According to Hon'ble Delhi High Court this again is a proviso intended to benefit the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court ruled that the second proviso to Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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) before this Tribunal. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056753913(i) dt. 04/10/2023 dt. 04/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order” . The impugned order is passed in the first appellate proceedings