SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

3) even when there was a reasonable and bonafide cause which led to delay in filing of the TDS Statement. 7.1 I have gone through the facts and grounds of appeal of the case, intimation u/s 200A of the Act passed by the AO. In this case, it is undisputed fact that the appellant has filed the TDS statement

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

HEALTH BIOTECH LIIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ ACIT CIR1(1), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1241, 1242 & 1243/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Health Biotech Limited, The Dcit/Acit, Sco 162-164, Ial Building, Vs Circle 1(1),Sector 17-E, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabch1876K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

3. "Every day’s delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ ACIT CIR1(1), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1241, 1242 & 1243/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Health Biotech Limited, The Dcit/Acit, Sco 162-164, Ial Building, Vs Circle 1(1),Sector 17-E, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabch1876K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

3. "Every day’s delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

HEALTH BIOTECH LIMITED ,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR1(1), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1241, 1242 & 1243/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Health Biotech Limited, The Dcit/Acit, Sco 162-164, Ial Building, Vs Circle 1(1),Sector 17-E, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabch1876K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

3. "Every day’s delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT/ACIT-TDS, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1),, CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SAMB BRANCH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,AMRITSAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INDIA (IN-SITU), LUDHIANA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE(15875),PATHANKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO (TDS-I), CHANDIGARH

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 4. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were heard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 5. With the consent of both the parties we take

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Delay condoned. Appeal taken up for hearing. The Facts 4. The assessee is an individual who is an agriculturist and it is the only source of income of the assessee and agricultural income being exempt from tax, he never filed his ITR. 5. The assessee owns approximately 15 acres of land which is used by him for the agricultural operations

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