DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

condone the delay in filing these appeals.\n3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y\n2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the\nfollowing effective grounds:\n1.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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.

condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of sub section (4), Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who had not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under sub section (1) of (2) of section 139 would not get benefit by filing the return under section 139(4) much

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 U/S 11 9(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). However, in those cases where the Income Tax Returns have also been filed beyond the due date prescribed under section 139(1

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, R-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals