TARSEM CHAND RANA,UNA vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, ITO WARD 98, UNA, RANGE CODE 37, UNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1085/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Tarsem Singh Rana, Ito, बनाम H.No. 4, Kathoh, Ward 98, Khurwain, Una Vs. Bangana H.P. 174321 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aawpr5715R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha, Advocate (Virtual Mode) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr

condonation of delay. 5 Brief facts of the case, as per the written submissions of the Counsel of the Assessee, are as under: - The Appellant, being an individual, was engaged in the business of security agency, filed its income tax return for AY 2020-21 on 07.11.2020, declaring an income of Rs. 16,75,950/-. Upon processing under section

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

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 602/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Indian Red Cross Society बनाम The DCIT(Exemptions) Circle-1, Chandigarh Red Cross Bhawan, Civil Lines, Bathinda-151001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAATI4900K अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

154 of the Act on 09.02.2020 with the CPC but the same was also rejected by CPC, vide order, dated 24.07.2020. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the CPC, the Assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 2.8.2023, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has 4 given

CHINMAYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA, UHF, NAUNI,SOLAN vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTIONS, SOLAN

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 528/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chinmaya Educational Society, Vs. The Ito, Chinmaya Vidyalaya,, Ward Exemptions, बनाम Uhf, Nauni, Solan 172230 Solan Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatc2581J अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 4. The appeal in this case has been filed on the following Grounds:- 1. That the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs. 51,48,304/- holding the excess of income over expenditure as the taxable income of the Assessee that

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: -

154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act on 21-10-2020. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. The assessee being a primary agricultural cooperative society, filed its return of income on 06-12-2018 claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) for Rs.2,41,781/-. The CPC, while processing the return

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

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, and 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 demanding

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

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3.\nIt has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3.\nIt has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

RAVINDER KUMAR,VPO MIRZAPUR vs. ITO WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as directed above

Bench: the lower authorities, and therefore, in the interest of justice, an opportunity may be granted so that the matter may be examined afresh at the end of the Assessing Officer. It was contended that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if the matter is remanded back, whereas irreparable loss would be suffered by the assessee if such an opportunity is denied. The Ld. AR had submitted that there was sufficient reason for not pursuing the appeal before this Tribunal and the assessee has f

delay of 154 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Briefly, the facts of the are that the assessment in the present case was completed ex parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147 by making an addition of Rs. 49,01,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in the savings bank account of the assessee maintained with State Bank

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

THE MANOH COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,VILLAGE MANOH, DISTT HAMIRPUR vs. ITO, WARD, HAMIRPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has sustained the said action of the CPC/JAO.

154 r.w.s. 143(1) dt. 21/10/2020. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has sustained the said action of the CPC/JAO. 5. Against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under

THE TARKWARI CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.,,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HAMIRPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 952/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Tarkwari Co-Operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd. Vill: Tarkwari, P.O. Tarkwari, Tehsil: Bhoranj, Dist: Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh-177001 बनाम The ITO Ward, Hamirpur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABAT1500E प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ajay Patyal, Advocate Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Da

154 r.w.s. 143(1) dt. 20/10/2020. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has sustained the said action of the CPC/JAO. 5. Against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a cooperative society registered under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. NEW FATEHGARH SAHIB SIRHIND BUS TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., SIRHIND

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc

154 dated 06.03.2020. That no addition/disallowance on account of EPF&ESI of Rs.1,93,899/- and Rs.12,475/- respectively totaling Rs.2,06,374/- could be made. They sought relief from CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) by impugned order has allowed their appeal on the basis of law then prevailing. He held that disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) amounting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. NEW FATEHGARH SAHIB SIRHIND BUS TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., SIRHIND

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Has Relied

154 dated 07.07.2020. That no addition/disallowance on account of EPF&ESI of Rs.2,63,757/- could be made. They sought relief from CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) by impugned order has allowed their appeal on the basis of law then prevailing. He held that disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs.2,63,757/-is deleted. Ground allowed