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

condoning the delay. Considering the problems faced by general public as mentioned above , even the Central Board of Direct Taxes( hereinafter called the CBDT) has come out with circular no. 07/2018 dt. 20-12-2018 ( copy enclosed) authorizing the department to admit the belated application in Form 10 particularly for the A. Y -2016-17. Please refer highlighted portions

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

condoning the delay in filing of the same, vide their order dated 28-02-13. The assessee filed appeal against the said order of the ITAT to the Hon’ble High Court, who vide their order in ITA No. 359/2013 dt. 18/03/2014 set aside the order of the ITAT and remanded the appeal back to the ITAT to decide

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Ground Nos. 3, 4 and 4.1 are not pressed. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. 7. Ground No.1 is general and needs no adjudication. 8. Apropos Ground Nos.2 to 2.7, the facts are that the ld. PCIT issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.08.2019 to the assessee

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

condonation of delay becomes redundant and is therefore disposed as redundant. 6. The hearings resumed. 7. The order of the Shri. Amar Singh in ITA NO. 365/CHD/2017 is being taken as a lead order. 8. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

condonation of delay becomes redundant and is therefore disposed as redundant. 6. The hearings resumed. 7. The order of the Shri. Amar Singh in ITA NO. 365/CHD/2017 is being taken as a lead order. 8. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA, BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 292C? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,84,04,290/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross-referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL ROMANA , BATHINDA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 292C? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,84,04,290/- made on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the entry of Dr. Jagjeet Chawla on the said page was cross-referred

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

SH. AMARJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

SH. BALJINDER SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT, CHANDIGARH -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

PARAMJIT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 even when