GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Commissioner (Appeals) Form of appeal and limitation - Whether though a party is required to explain each day's delay and to show that it was prevented by sufficient cause in filing appeal in time, yet power to condone delay has to be exercised in a pragmatic manner to advance substantial justice Held

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Commissioner (Appeals) Form of appeal and limitation - Whether though a party is required to explain each day's delay and to show that it was prevented by sufficient cause in filing appeal in time, yet power to condone delay has to be exercised in a pragmatic manner to advance substantial justice Held

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)

delay in filing the cross- objection is condoned and the same is hereby admitted for necessary adjudication. 26. Now, coming to the various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in its cross-objection so filed, it is noted that the assessee has effectively challenged the action of the AO in levying interest amounting

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

HIMALAYAN BUDDHIST CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,KULLU vs. ACIT,CIRCLE/DCIT CPC,BENGLURU, MANDI

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

Bench: Due Date Of Filling Of Income Tax Return Was On Bonafide Grounds, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay.

delay in furnishing of the Form No. 10, it could had been condoned because the A.O. never pointed out the defect before disallowing the benefit under section 11(2) of the Act to the assessee. He requested to restore the issue back to the file of the A.O. to allow the claim after verification. The reliance was placed

AMIT SAINI,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA, WARD-I, KUK, HARYANA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite several notices under Section 250 being issued electronically to the registered e-mail address, there was no compliance by the assessee. The CIT(A), therefore, proceeded ex parte and held that the assessee had failed to substantiate his grounds of appeal or file any documentary evidence in support of his claim. 7.1 The CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition under Section 144 of the Act since the assessee had not availed the

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the actions of AO in making additions of Rs. 5,25,364/ on account of undisclosed business income from

DECIMAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FATEHABAD

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Addressing The Grievance Of The Assessee, It Is Relevant To Address Delay Of 2 Days Pointed Out By The Registry

condoned. 3. The ld. AR inviting attention to the grounds raised in ITA 460/CHD/2022 submitted that disallowance of Rs.12,73,681/- was sustained in appeal and in the ground raised before the ITAT, the amount mentioned as Rs.13,11,390/- in the ground is a typographical error. Referring to page 3 para 5.1 of the impugned order

BAHADUR SINGH ,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) has wrongly upheld addition of Rs. 1,41,53,773 without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard it is requested to set aside

MANMEET ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT,CPC//DCIT-CIRCLE-V(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay and no further oppurtuinities is given either to explain or to file affidavit in this regard. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has wrongly disallowed Rs. 116244/- on account of ESI and PF without considering the judgment of Juridctional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hernia. Embroidery

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the present appeal is sufficiently explained and the same is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical in both the years. With the consent of both the parties

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the present appeal is sufficiently explained and the same is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical in both the years. With the consent of both the parties

SATINDER PAUL THROUGH L/H NEELAM SAINI,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

Section ITA 136/CHD/2025 A.Y. 2017-18 2 2. On the other hand the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the income-tax department must be directed to grant credit for tax deducted at source in accordance with law. 3. Difference of Gratuity compensation at 2007 and 1997 scales amounting to Rs.3,32,271/- (Rs.9,10,560/- - Rs.5

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

260] - High Court of\nBombay and Geolife Organics Vs. ACIT [58 ITR(T) 297)-ITAT Mumbai.\n8.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute\nany of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of\nhearing of the appeal.\n4\n4. It was stated before us 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

260] - High Court of\nBombay and Geolife Organics Vs. ACIT [58 ITR(T) 297)-ITAT Mumbai.\n8.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute\nany of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of\nhearing of the appeal.\n\n5\n4.\nIt was stated before us 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

260] - High Court of\nBombay and Geolife Organics Vs. ACIT [58 ITR(T) 297)-ITAT Mumbai.\n8.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute\nany of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of\nhearing of the appeal.\n5\n4.\nIt was stated before us 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

260] - High Court of\nBombay and Geolife Organics Vs. ACIT [58 ITR(T) 297)-ITAT Mumbai.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, vary, omit or substitute\nany of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of\nhearing of the appeal.\n5\n4. It was stated before us that