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

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

Bench: This Hon'Ble

condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form 10 B. The appellant will inform the Hon'ble Court about the decision of the CIT (Exemptions). 4. That the intimation under section 143

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. 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

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

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

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

SJVN LIMITED,SHIMLA HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ACIT , SHIMLA

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

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

section 143(1) with the condonation of delay in terms of Section 249(3) of the Act if there was misconception

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

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)

143(3) on 27/11/2019 wherein the AO disallowed the exemption claimed under section 11 solely on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B was not e-filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the CBDT vide Circular No. 10/2019 dt. 22/05/2019 has provided that in all such cases

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 the appeal. It was submitted that the return of income e-filed by the assessee was processed by CPC u/s 143 (1) of the Act by making an addition on account of disallowance of employee’s share of ESI and PF which was deposited late i.e., after the due date and added

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

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

143(2) and 142(1) were issued and the assessment was completed under section 144 vide order dt. 23/12/2019 wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 49,63,000/- deposited in the bank account maintained by the Assessee with HDFC Bank in absence of necessary explanation explaining the nature and source of the said deposit submitted