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

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

condonation of delay in filing departmental appeal to ITAT in the case of M/s Partap industries Ltd., Vill. Beopror, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala - PAN-AABCP0384Q FOR A.Y. 2013-19- Regarding. Kindly refer to the subject cited above. 2. In this regard, it is stated that the Income Tax return of the above noted assessee processed of Income Tax Return

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

13. The Assessing Officer has been given no discretion in the matter of granting interest. The amount of interest has to be paid to an assessee in terms of Section 244A of the Act. The only limitation provided therein under Section 244A of the Act is under sub-section 2 thereof which mandates that where any refund results

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

13. The Assessing Officer has been given no discretion in the matter of granting interest. The amount of interest has to be paid to an assessee in terms of Section 244A of the Act. The only limitation provided therein under Section 244A of the Act is under sub-section 2 thereof which mandates that where any refund results

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

DALJEET SINGH,JIND vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JIND

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 847/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Daljeet Singh, The Ao, बनाम House No. 469/24, Ward 15, Jind Employees Colony Vs. Rohtak Road Bye Pass, Jind 126102 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bmips1734G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143(3) of Income Tax Act. 2. The CIT has failed to understand the business model of the Appellant, and erroneously interpreted the loss effected by the depositors as a tool to evade tax. 3. That the CIT did not allow the Appellant reasonable opportunity of being heard before issuing order. 4. Case Laws- (i) Oracle India

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)

13. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has reached out to the AO seeking condonation for delayed filing of Form 10B and in such a situation, where the AO didn’t condone the delay presuminingly (though nothing is stated in this regard specifically dismissing the application) for the reason that it doesn’t satisfy the criteria

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

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 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA vs. SH. SEWA SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 696/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Shri Sewa Singh, बनाम H. No. B-27,Focal Point, Patiala Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abjpj5347B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02 .07.2024 आदेश/Order

Section 260A of 696-Chd-2023 Sewa Singh, Patiala 7 the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Court is required to examine as to whether any substantial question of law would arise for consideration we are of the view that the appeal should not be thrown out on technical ground. That apart we find that Tribunal had referred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. MOHAR SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Court is required to examine as to whether any substantial question of law would arise for consideration we are of the view that the appeal should not be thrown out on technical ground. That apart we find that Tribunal had referred to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. GURMEET SINGH PANDHER, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Court is required to examine as to whether any substantial question of law would arise for consideration we are of the view that the appeal should not be thrown out on technical ground. That apart we find that Tribunal had referred to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. KULWARAN SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Court is required to examine as to whether any substantial question of law would arise for consideration we are of the view that the appeal should not be thrown out on technical ground. That apart we find that Tribunal had referred to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 7. A perusal of the ground of appeal would reveal that assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around two-fold of issues, namely ; a) The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the re- opening of assessment, A.Y.2008-09 6 b) The ld. CIT (Appeals

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay caused in filing the above said Appeal, as there is no mistake on the part of the above said Assessee but the mistake has been on the part of the Counsel of the Assessee.” 7. Further an affidavit of the Ld. counsel for assessee admitting to his mistake on oath was also filed before

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-VII(2), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay caused in filing the above said Appeal, as there is no mistake on the part of the above said Assessee but the mistake has been on the part of the Counsel of the Assessee.” 7. Further an affidavit of the Ld. counsel for assessee admitting to his mistake on oath was also filed before

SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO , WARD -1,, SANGRUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

condoned and the appeal is admitted. 6. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,43,203/- made by Id. A.O. (CPC) on account of late deposit of employee's contribution to ESI/EPF, though