FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: This Hon'Ble

condonation of delay before concerned CIT(Exemption) and get the delay condoned. In absence of condonation of delay order from

COLLECTIVE EFFORTS FOR VOLUNTARY ACTION,CHAMBA vs. CIT(APPEAL), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee I

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No.879/Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Condonation of delay as under: 2.2 Having gone through the assessee's aforesaid application for condonation of delay, I find

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

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

condonation of delay in filing Return of Income and decide on merit. 3. For all other application for condonation of delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. PARTAP INDUSTRIES LIMITED, RAJPURA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

delay. The High Court in this case, condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. The copy

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

condonation of delay alongwith their affidavits. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been pleaded by the appellants

M/S SHAKTI SPINNERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

condonation of delay, therefore, said delay of 1740 days was to be condoned" 14. Further, the assessee also relies on the judgment

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condonation of delay but ld.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condonation of delay but ld.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condonation of delay but ld.CIT (Appeals) did not condone the delay. 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing of appeal. Our reason for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing of appeal. Our reason for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing of appeal. Our reason for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

delay in filing of appeal. Our reason for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay and the reasons were found reasonable for condoning the delay and delay was condoned by the Ld. CIT(A). However

M/S LITTLE KANHAYA KNITWEARS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 724/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018019 M/S Little Kanhya Vs. The Dcit बनाम Central Circle-3, Knitwears, Ludhiana Ram Gali, Madhpuri-1, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefl0415E अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2024 आदेश/Order

condonation of delay. Hence the delay remains unsubstantiated and cannot be condoned.” 2.6 It is also recorded in the impugned

INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA vs. SH. SEWA SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 696/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Shri Sewa Singh, बनाम H. No. B-27,Focal Point, Patiala Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abjpj5347B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02 .07.2024 आदेश/Order

delay and requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the return of income e-filed

DALJEET SINGH,JIND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JIND

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 847/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Daljeet Singh, The Ao, बनाम House No. 469/24, Ward 15, Jind Employees Colony Vs. Rohtak Road Bye Pass, Jind 126102 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bmips1734G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condonation of delay reasonable cause delay of 1297 days in filing appeal being on account of lapse on the part

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. GURMEET SINGH PANDHER, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

delay. The High Court in this case condoned a delay of 314 days in filing appeal by Revenue. 4.6 In view