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)

139 of the Act. Accordingly, assessee’s case is squarely covered by the Para 4(i) of CBDT Circular No. 10/2019 dt. 22/05/2019. It was submitted that despite CBDT Circular condoning the delay for the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18, the AO disallowed the exemption claimed under section 11 which has been mechanically sustained by the Ld. Addl/JCIT

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

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

delay of 37 days in filing the appeal by the assessee was beyond its control. Therefore the same is 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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

139; or ITA Nos.1264 to 1267/Chd/2019 & ITA Nos.103 to 106/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06 Page 13 of 28 (ii) from the date of furnishing of return of income to the date on which the refund is granted, in a case not covered under sub-clause (i); (aa) where the refund is out of any tax paid under section

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

139; or ITA Nos.1264 to 1267/Chd/2019 & ITA Nos.103 to 106/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06 Page 13 of 28 (ii) from the date of furnishing of return of income to the date on which the refund is granted, in a case not covered under sub-clause (i); (aa) where the refund is out of any tax paid under section

ASHISH SOOD,ZIRAKPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

9) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 are directory in nature and are not mandatory in character. He then invited our attention to the following judgments:  BachaspatimayumUmakanta Sharma Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 740/Chd/2022 dt. 18/04/2023  Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna Vs. ITO reported in 193 ITD 840 (BangloreTrib)  42 Hertz Software India (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 139 taxmann.com

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

9. Further, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a recent case, PCIT Vs M/s Organon India Pvt. Ltd., (ITAT/16/2020) (copy enclosed as Annexure-B) held in its order dated 15-06-2022 that where there is a substantial question of law involved, appeal should not be rejected on technical ground of delay. The High Court in this case, condoned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

9. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the CIT(A) erred in pointing out that\nthe Addl. CIT has applied his mind by supervising and monitoring all the search and\nseizure case periodically. The ld. counsel argued that the approval under section 153D\nof the Act starts from the day of drafting of assessment order. He pointed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

9. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the CIT(A) erred in pointing out that\nthe Addl. CIT has applied his mind by supervising and monitoring all the search and\nseizure case periodically. The ld. counsel argued that the approval under section 153D\nof the Act starts from the day of drafting of assessment order. He pointed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

9. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the CIT(A) erred in pointing out that\nthe Addl. CIT has applied his mind by supervising and monitoring all the search and\nseizure case periodically. The ld. counsel argued that the approval under section 153D\nof the Act starts from the day of drafting of assessment order. He pointed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

9. The ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the CIT(A) erred in pointing out that\nthe Addl. CIT has applied his mind by supervising and monitoring all the search and\nseizure case periodically. The ld. counsel argued that the approval under section 153D\nof the Act starts from the day of drafting of assessment order. He pointed

EMSON TOOLS MFG. CORPN. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT/DCIT- 1, LUDHIANA

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

condone the delay which was beyond the control of the assessee and the appeal is admitted. 5. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding addition of Rs. 1188745/- towards late deposit of EPF without appreciating that it has been deposited before filing

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

condoning the delay. 2(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was un- justified in not accepting the claim of accumulated profits amounting to Rs. 15,70,071/- made u/s 11(2) of the Act on the alleged ground that the Form 10 filed by the Appellant Trust did not specify the explicit purpose

THE CHAPLAH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD,VPO CHOULI vs. LD. DCIT , CPC, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Dt 25.04.2023 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 5. The issue raised in Ground No.1 is against the order of the CIT(A) upholding disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short 'the Act') by the assessee as made by Assessing Officer, CPC in the intimation passed

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

139(1) of the Act be deleted after due verification. 4.2 It was further submitted that on a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 696-Chd-2023 Sewa Singh, Patiala 4 CIT, Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 has held that if an assessee deposits amounts held/retained

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)

139(1) of the Act be deleted. 4.2 It was submitted that on a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 has held that if an assessee deposits amounts held/retained by him as employee's contribution to EPF/ESI etc. after the due date

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)

139(1) of the Act be deleted. 4.2 It was submitted that on a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 has held that if an assessee deposits amounts held/retained by him as employee's contribution to EPF/ESI etc. after the due date