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, 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,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, 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,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

SUSHMA,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, YAMUNA NAGAR, YAMUNA NAGAR

condone the delay in filing these appeals.\n3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y\n2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the\nfollowing effective grounds:\n1.\nThat having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case\nand in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication. 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. With the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No. 125/Chd/2020

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

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

delay is condoned. 4. The Department in its appeal in ITA No.534/CHD/2023 has raised the following grounds : (i) The Ld, CTT(A), on facts and circumstances of j the ease, has erred in deleting the disallowance made of Rs. 1,86,96,356/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the AO holding that the assessee has failed

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

section 253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of\nconvenience and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesseee is aggrieved\nby the common order bearing number ITBA/APL/M/250/2019-\n20/1021304437(1) dt. 25/11/2019 of CIT(A) Shimla, H.P. passed u/s 250 of\nthe Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The\nrelevant

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

section 253 of the\r\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of\r\nconvenience and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesseee is aggrieved\r\nby the common order bearing number ITBA/APL/M/2019-\r\n20/1021304437(1) dt. 25/11/2019 of CIT(A) Shimla, H.P. passed u/s 250 of\r\nthe Act which is hereinafter referred

ACME BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MOHALI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 491/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Vs. The Dcit, Acme Builders Private Limited, Group Housing No. 10, बनाम Central Circe 1(1), Jlpl, Sector 91, Chandigarh Mohali Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaica9869Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

condonation of delay. 5. The grounds of appeal taken by the Assessee are as under: - 1) That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an ex-parte order under section 201

SH. RANA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Now, coming to the merits of the case. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on the property

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)

condonation of delay in terms of Section 249(3) of the Act if there was misconception that the relevant issues were considered in the assessment order and the order so passed by the AO. 9. Against the said findings and the directions of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. During the course of hearing

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.

condone the delay in filing TDS statement on account of any reasonable or sufficient cause for such failure. Moreover, without prejudiced to the above, the ignorance of law cannot be considered as a reasonable cause. 7.3.1 The case laws relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on the facts as discussed below: a) G.B. Builders vs. ACIT-CPC(TDS) [ITAT

JCIT(OSD)(TDS),CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD.,, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., बनाम 13Th Mile Stone, Tax (Osd) (Tds) Circle Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 2 Liberty Puram, G.T. Road, Panchkula Kutail, Karnal Tan No: Rtkl00664G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoned the delay and permitted the Ld. DR to argue the appeal on merits. 6. Accordingly, the Ld. departmental representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source in respect of incentive paid to various dealers as incentives. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee during

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,BAIJNATH vs. ITO(TDS), PALAMPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: the Commissioner. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs

1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an ITA No.410, 748,777 &778/CHD/2025 A.Y.2013-4 to 2016-17 4 appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen