ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

246A of the Act as u/s 249(3) of the Act Assessee bank had established sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay. The original assessment order is dated 15.3.2022 wherein an amount of Rs. 4,76,709/- was assessed and demanded. The Assessee bank was aggrieved of this order and preferred first appeal before

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

JAGJIT SINGH ,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PATIALA , PATIALA

In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of Ld

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058720011(1) Dt. 13/12/2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2010 To 31/03/2011. 2. Factual Matrix

section 246A of the Act and by the impugned order Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assesse consequently the impugned assessment order of Ld. AO dated 30/10/2018 stands sustained. 5 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order prefers second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form 36 before

SHRI DARBARA SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

condoned the delay in filing of the present appeal. Accordingly, we allowed the Ld. counsel to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant /assessee. 8. The Ld. Counsel submitted before us that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the same has been passed in violation

M/S GYMKHANA CLUB,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, W-3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain, Vice Prersident & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 1305/Chd/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Gymkhana Club, Vs The Ito, Sector 6, Ward-3, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaag0115B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2024 Physical Hearing आदेश/Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav,A.M.

delay is herby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee club had declared ‘Nil’ income in its return of income claiming the whole of its receipts as exempt under the principle of mutuality. As per the return of income filed for the year under consideration

ATAM PARKASH,PATIALA vs. CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA, PATIALA

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

246A of the Act and the Ld. CIT by impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the assessee consequently Ld. AO order dated 11/02/2014 is sustained. 2.9 That the assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred second appeal in terms of section 253 of the Act before this Tribunal and in Form No. 36 has raised following grounds

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.

246A before the Honble CIT(A). This has been a consistent view by a number of decisions including in Commandant SRPF GR-VII Welfare Fund vs ACIT ITA 1937/Pune/2019 dtd. 30.06.2022. Moving forward, if the appeal has been held by higher judiciary to be maintainable but the relief in any case can not be granted by reducing or deleting

NANDA FILLING STATION,SIRHIND vs. ITO, WARD, SIRHIND

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing

delay of 8 days in filing the application before this Tribunal is condoned as there is sufficient cause. Appeal taken up for hearing. 2.2 The return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 was not filed by the assessee as one of the partners out of two of the firm called M/s Nanda Filling Station having PAN No. AAJFN2253R

DCIT CC-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL FASHION (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit both the Cross Objections for adjudication. 4. The assessee, in its Cross Objection for A.Y. 2008–09, has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the said addition was made without

DCIT CC-1, LUDHIANA vs. M/S OSWAL FASHION (P) LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit both the Cross Objections for adjudication. 4. The assessee, in its Cross Objection for A.Y. 2008–09, has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the said addition was made without

MS EKOM EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, SCO-11, SECTOR-4D, BATTAN LAL ROAD, GT ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. THE JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER ACIT,DCIT CENTRE CIRCLE PATIALA, PUNJAB

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on denovo basis

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Dt. 05/10/2023 Passed In 1St Appeal No. 10596/Rot/Patiala/It/Cit(A)-5 Ldh/2019-20 Pased Under Section 250(6) Of The Act By Ld. Cit(A) Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2017-18 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2016 To 31/03/2017. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dt. 30/12/2019 Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of Ld. Ao Ward-2, Mandi, Govindgarh, Head Quarter, Sirhind Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Computed As Rs.

246A of the Act who by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. Consequently impugned assessment order dt. 30/12/2019 of Ld. AO stands sustained. 3. The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has preferred second appeal u/s 253 of the Act before us and in form No. 36 which is the form of appeal to this

ZORA SINGH ,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - SIRHIND, SIRHIND

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as and

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

Delay of 55 days is condoned for which sufficient cause is shown. Appeal taken up for hearing. Factual Matrix 2.1 That the assessee had not filed return of income for assessment year 2017-18. 2.2 That Department of Income Tax had a credible information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.10,21,500/- in account

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

condone the delay for which sufficient\ncause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication.\nSince the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were\nheard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order.\nWith the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No.\n125/Chd/2020

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

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

condone the delay for which sufficient\r\ncause is shown, and admit all the appeals for adjudication.\r\nSince the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and were\r\nheard together so they are being disposed off by this consolidated order.\r\nWith the consent of both the parties we take up Appeal No.\r\n125/Chd/2020

HARINDER KAUR,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3) , MOHALI

In the result, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand on de novo basis

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 982/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Harinder Kaur, Vs. The Ito-6(3), बनाम Mohali Mohindra Complex, H.No. 9, H O. Hardaspur, 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Buspk5188G अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Cajla, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 आदेश/Order

Delay of filing present appeal is condoned for which sufficient cause is shown. Appeal then taken up for hearing. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That by an assessment order dated 30.11.2018, income of the Assessee was computed of Rs. 22,79,250.00 in terms of section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer gave several opportunities