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. 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. 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

VARITRA FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, AMBALA, AMBALA

Bench: The Cit(A) On 14.12.2024 Against The Intimation Dated 27.11.2023 Issued Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Unaware Of The Said Intimation As The Registered Email Address Was Inaccessible & The Order Was Not Served Through Any Valid Mode Prescribed Under Law. The Assessee Contended That It Became Aware Of The Order Only Upon Receipt Of A Telephonic Communication From The Department

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It is observed that the delay in filing the appeal was attributed to the assessee's unawareness of the intimation dated 27.11.2023, allegedly due to inaccessibility of the registered email and absence of any valid service of the order. The assessee claimed that service through SMS and uploading

GASTROENTEROLOGY PATIENT CARE WELFARE AND RESEARCH TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 98/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Gastroenterology Patient Care Vs. The Commissioner Welfare & Research Trust, बनाम Of Income Tax Department Of Gastroenterology, Exemptions, F-Block, Nehru Hospital, Chandigarh Pgimer, Sector 12, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadtg8271C अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. S.K Bhasin, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and as such, we proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a Trust created by eminent doctors of Department of Gastroenterology, PGIMER, Chandigarh. The Assessee made an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income

IDREAM SOCIAL EDTECH FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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. The facts of the case are that an application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the assessee Trust on 28.09.2022. In order to examine and verify the objects of the Trust/Foundation, the genuineness of its activities

IDREAM SOCIAL EDTECH FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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. The facts of the case are that an application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the assessee Trust on 28.09.2022. In order to examine and verify the objects of the Trust/Foundation, the genuineness of its activities

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

SCIENCE AND TECH ENTER PARK STEP, THAPAR UNIVERSITY,PATIALA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, C R BUILDING CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: This Tribunal. The Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

delay is condoned. 4. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(E) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has submitted that the ld.CIT(E) has summarily rejected the application of the assessee without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical; pleads that no valid notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) were served and that the entire proceedings are void; and, without prejudice, contests on merits the addition under section 69A, asserting that no effective opportunity was afforded to explain the cash deposits. 11. On the other hand

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

127; alleges that the approval under section 151 is mechanical; pleads that no valid notices under sections 142(1)/143(2) were served and that the entire proceedings are void; and, without prejudice, contests on merits the addition under section 69A, asserting that no effective opportunity was afforded to explain the cash deposits. 11. On the other hand