DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

11. We find force in the above contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees. Admittedly, the returns up to the assessment year 2010-11 in relation to the captioned appeals were filed by the assessee much prior to the date of search action and on the date of search action, the original assessment proceedings already stood completed

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

C,\nChandigarh-160017\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-3\nYamunanagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: ADPPC5697M\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT,DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 6 /Chd/2023\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19\nShri Rakesh Kumar\nS/o Shri Som Nath

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

c) the statement referred to in clause (a) is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year: Provided that in computing the period of five years referred to in clause (a), the period during which the income could not be applied

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.\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. 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

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.

11. As stated, the above facts have been taken into consideration by the ld. CIT(A) also and the same have not been refuted by the Department before us too. The delay concerned, therefore, was entirely beyond the control of the assessee company and due to said delay, the assessee company has also stated to have changed its Auditor

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

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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

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

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