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

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

condonation of delay. Appeal is therefore taken up for final hearing. Factual Matrix 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of commercial vehicles and is a public limited company. For the year under consideration which is A.Y. 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015, the assessee company filed its return

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

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 143(3

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 143(3

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 143(3

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take the facts mainly from ITA No. 321/CHD/2019 assessment year 2010-11. The other relevant facts from ITA 322/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 would be taken note according to requirement. 5. The assessee

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take the facts mainly from ITA No. 321/CHD/2019 assessment year 2010-11. The other relevant facts from ITA 322/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 would be taken note according to requirement. 5. The assessee

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)

condone the delay and to allow the exemption under section 11 of the Act. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable to the AO. The AO held that as per Section 12A of the Act, the assessee was required to file the Audit Report for the year under consideration in Form 10B alongwith return

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

Bench: This Hon'Ble

139(l)is procedural in nature. 3.3 That the appellant ,in appeal before the Hon'ble CIT/ADDL/JCIT ( APPEALS) had prayed to condone the delay in filing Audit Report in Form 10B,because the appellant was under a bona fide belief that the Hon'ble CIT/ADDL/JCIT(Appeals) under his co-terminus powers, could condone the delay. But the delay

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

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

3. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the contents of the aforesaid application and also submitted that the delay occurred due to COVID-19 pandemic, it was requested that the delay may be condoned. 4. The Ld. Sr. DR could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 5. After

THE NANAWAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HAMIRPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Tribunal.

section 139. 3. Applications have been received in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereafter referred to as 'the Board') from co-operative societies claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23, regarding condonation of delay

THE SWAHALWA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,DISTT. HAMIRPUR vs. ITO, WARD HAMIPUR, HAMIRPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: us.3. I find that the appropriate course of action for the assessee, on the facts of such cases, lies in CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2023 dated 26-07-2023 (F.No.173/2112023-IT A-I) which read as under: -

section 139. 3. Applications have been received in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereafter referred to as 'the Board') from co-operative societies claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act for various assessment years from AY 2018-19 to AY 2022-23, regarding condonation of delay

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

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

3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and, vitiated order. 21. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed

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

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

3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has framed the impugned order without granting sufficient opportunity to the appellant and therefore the order made is illegal, invalid and, vitiated order. 21. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 19 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed