HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

SHRI GURU NANAK NAM LEWA SEWAK JATHA,,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

section 11 was required to be disallowed and the assessee was issued a show cause in this regard. In response, the assessee submitted that it has filed Form 10B on 22/03/2019, however there has been a delay in filing the said form and reasons for the delay were explained and it was requested to condone

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 Tax under Section 153D. This approval

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

delay in filing of the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:- “Based on information received from DDIT(lnv.), Shimla, the assessment proceedings was taken up for AY 2017-18 u/s.143(3) in the case of M/s. H.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd.,(AABFH7694E) by ACIT. Shimla Circle. Information gathered during investigation relating to large

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

delay in furnishing of the Form No. 10, it could had been condoned because the A.O. never pointed out the defect before disallowing the benefit under section 11

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

Bench: This Hon'Ble

Section 246A of the Act and Addl. CIT(A) however has dismissed the appeal by impugned order. 2.8 The Addl. CIT(A) in the impugned order has held as under : “6.1.3 In this regard, the appellant mentioned that the Provisional Registration Number was inadvertently mentioned as ITA 608/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2022-23 4 AAAAAF1283DE20219 as against the correct Provisional Registration Number

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

11. The appeal in this case has also been filed vide ITA NO.454/CHANDI/2023 on 19-07-2023 ( copy enclosed as Annexure-C).” 4. In this regard, during the course of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the Department has filed the aforesaid letter explaining the detailed reasons for delay and requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal

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.

section 263 after a delay of 1740 days contending that there was a delay in filing appeal as income tax practitioner of assessee did not advise assessee to file appeal against order passed by Principal Commissioner under bona fide belief that order passed by Principal Commissioner was not appealable, mistake of lawyer or accountant was a good reason for condonation

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

11 of 28 same also. That the occasion for the Ld.CIT(A) to allow this claim arose on the assessee raising additional grounds before the ITAT in quantum proceedings which were duly admitted by the ITAT and thereafter restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication who allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the refund arose to the assessee

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

11 of 28 same also. That the occasion for the Ld.CIT(A) to allow this claim arose on the assessee raising additional grounds before the ITAT in quantum proceedings which were duly admitted by the ITAT and thereafter restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication who allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the refund arose to the assessee

SANT KIRPAL VIDYAK MISSION,LUDHIANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The\nCommissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form\nno.10B shall satisfy themselves that the assessee was prevented by reasonable\ncause from filing such application within the stipulated time. Further, all\nsuch applications shall be disposed off by 30.09.2019.\n12.10 The learned AR submitted that the delay

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

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

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

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

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

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7.\nBoth the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment order passed under Section 153A read with\nSection

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment order passed under Section 153A read with\nSection