HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

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 is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day’s delay must be explained" does not mean

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

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

256/- New Service DRP allowed the claim of The Hon’ble agreement dated foreign travelling Chandigarh Bench of May 12, 2007 with expenditure in favour of the Tribunal vide order Fidelity the Respondent by dated May 30, 2019 Information directing the AO to allow directed to delete Services Inc. USA the claim after verifying disallowance of and dated whether foreign

SCIENCE AND TECH ENTER PARK STEP, THAPAR UNIVERSITY,PATIALA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, C R BUILDING CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: This Tribunal. The Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

2. That the application for registration was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E), Chandigarh in an ex-party order dated 16.01.2023. The Ld.CIT(E) had also issued three notices on 07.11.2022, 09.12.2022 20.12.2022 on the registered e-mail id ccstep&thapar.edu. No physical notice was issued. There is delay of 256 days in filing the appeal. 3. The society

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

256, copy at page; 14 to43 of Paper Book. vi) Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgements, wherein it has been held that where the cash credits have been declared as sales by the assessee than making addition of the same under section 68/69 of the act is prohibited, as the same shall amount to double taxation

FASHION ZONE,LUDHIANA vs. JCIT, WARD III(2), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the present appeal which is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following concise/amended grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer and, thereby, confirming the addition

THE DCIT, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH vs. SH. MANJEET SINGH, LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas, Cross

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/O Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम S/O Shri Harbir Singh Circle (International # 1460, Ward Number-8, Taxation ), Gahlewal, Chandigarh Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024

256 Taxman 59(SC) is also applicable since in this case order was already passed against the objections filed by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by considering the approval given by the Pr. CIT was in a mechanical manner inspite of the facts that