DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

221 ITR 53 wherein, it was held that the\ngrant of approval must not be mere formality but a judicial function to\nbe exercised with due care, application of mind and examination of\nthe relevant material. Thus, we hold that the approval as granted by\nthe Addl. CIT seems to be in a mechanical manner, accordingly, we\nhold that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

221 ITR 53 wherein, it was held that the\ngrant of approval must not be mere formality but a judicial function to\nbe exercised with due care, application of mind and examination of\nthe relevant material. Thus, we hold that the approval as granted by\nthe Addl. CIT seems to be in a mechanical manner, accordingly, we\nhold that

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

221 ITR 53 wherein, it was held that the\ngrant of approval must not be mere formality but a judicial function to\nbe exercised with due care, application of mind and examination of\nthe relevant material. Thus, we hold that the approval as granted by\nthe Addl. CIT seems to be in a mechanical manner, accordingly, we\nhold that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

221 ITR 53 wherein, it was held that the\ngrant of approval must not be mere formality but a judicial function to\nbe exercised with due care, application of mind and examination of\nthe relevant material. Thus, we hold that the approval as granted by\nthe Addl. CIT seems to be in a mechanical manner, accordingly, we\nhold that

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

SAIURJA HYDEL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW SHIMLA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. It Is Submitted In The Application That The Impugned Order Was Passed By The Ld.

delay is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal is not justified in holding that the order passed by the Td Assessing Officer on the application filed under section 154 by the appellant assessee was not an appealable order