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)

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty orders passed under section 270A, 271AAC(1) and 272A

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)

condoned and the matter be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.10 It was further submitted that there is a delay in other three appeals as well which have been filed by the assessee against the sustenance of the penalty orders passed under section 270A, 271AAC(1) and 272A

M/S BNK INVESTMENTS,CHANDIGARH vs. JCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned. Said order was pronounced in the presence of parties in the Open Court. The parties were, accordingly, directed to argue the appeal on merits. 6. Briefly stated, on information available with the office of JCIT (TDS) Chandigarh, it was noticed that the person responsible (hereinafter referred to as PR) had failed to file quarterly returns in time relating

RAJESH BANSAL,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1447/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

272A(2)(k) of the Act for late filing of TDS return. 2 A.Y.2012-13 The appeal of the assessee is barred by time for three days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed, wherein the reason for the delay has been explained. Considering the reasons explained and the shortness of period of three days, the delay

LATE HARPAL SINGH THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, NIRMAL SAINI,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

272A(1)(d) on account of non compliance of the notice issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. He imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- for non compliance of these notices. 4. The impugned order dated 27.09.2022 was challenged before the CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee was time barred by 172 days. This

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

SH. LAL CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for 7

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

delay which deserved to be condoned. 3. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer wherein he has erred in levying the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 272A

SH. LAL CHAND,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, C-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed for 7

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

delay which deserved to be condoned. 3. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer wherein he has erred in levying the impugned penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 272A

BHOOPRAM SHARMA,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, PANCHKULA

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

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

272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with statutory notices. The total assessed income was computed as Rs. 79,32,230/-, comprising the declared income of Rs. 2,86,490/-, the unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 58,97,020/-, and the additional turnover-based income of Rs. 17,48,720/-. The AO issued the assessment order along with a demand notice