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 order from CIT(Exemption), these grounds of the appellant fails. Addition made by CPC is hereby upheld. 6.2 Ground No. 5 & 6 are general in nature and hence Dismissed 7. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed". 2.9 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised

THE BAROT CO-OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

Addition u/s 69A Rs.48 95,755/- Assessed Income Rs.48,95,755/- 4. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has observed as under: “Condonation of delay

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of appeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original assessment order passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act was required to be approved by the Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

Income Tax Act, which provides powers to the ld. Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal before 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

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

condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It was submitted that the return of income e-filed by the assessee was processed by CPC u/s 143 (1) of the Act by making an addition

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961; that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is right in not appreciating the provisions of section 80AC of the I.T. Act, 1961 which provides that in order to claim deduction u/s 80IC

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.

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is taken up for adjudication on merits. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it was argued before us by the Ld. Counsel that the only ground of appeal is with regard to the addition on account of unsecured loans, from the directors and their family members

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)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

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)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

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)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

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)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal is as under: 1. It is submitted that the M/s. Golden wines was a partnership concern which was constituted vide partnership deed dated 31.03.2016 with eight partners. The firm was engaged in business of sale purchase of all kind of liquor and the firm was dissolved vide dissolution deed dated 31.03.2017. Thus

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

addition or by way of reducing the losses etc., then there may be no amount of tax which the assessee which can be said to be sought to be evaded by the assessee, then under the circumstances, there will not be any penalty leviable or payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act and in the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

addition or by way of reducing the losses etc., then there may be no amount of tax which the assessee which can be said to be sought to be evaded by the assessee, then under the circumstances, there will not be any penalty leviable or payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act and in the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

addition or by way of reducing the losses etc., then there may be no amount of tax which the assessee which can be said to be sought to be evaded by the assessee, then under the circumstances, there will not be any penalty leviable or payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act and in the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

addition or by way of reducing the losses etc., then there may be no amount of tax which the assessee which can be said to be sought to be evaded by the assessee, then under the circumstances, there will not be any penalty leviable or payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act and in the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

addition or by way of reducing the losses etc., then there may be no amount of tax which the assessee which can be said to be sought to be evaded by the assessee, then under the circumstances, there will not be any penalty leviable or payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act and in the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

addition or by way of reducing the losses etc., then there may be no amount of tax which the assessee which can be said to be sought to be evaded by the assessee, then under the circumstances, there will not be any penalty leviable or payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act and in the circumstances

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

addition or by way of reducing the losses etc., then there may be no amount of tax which the assessee which can be said to be sought to be evaded by the assessee, then under the circumstances, there will not be any penalty leviable or payable by the assessee as per the provisions of the Act and in the circumstances