DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

31 provides that if such an income is suo moto declared by the assessee in his return, then no penalty is leviable and if it is otherwise detected by the Assessing officer, in addition to the tax payable u/s 115BBC, such an assessee will be liable to pay penalty equal to a sum computed @ 10% of the tax payable

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

1) is directory and not mandatory. Delay has also been condoned in similar cases, some of which are as follows : ITA 326/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 29 a. 2019 (10) TMI 235 - ITAT Chandigarh M/S East Bourne Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asstt. CIT, Circle Shimla ITA No. 301/Chd/2015 Dated August 9, 2019 b. 2019 (6) TMI 1045 – ITAT Chandigarh M/S Shree

THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, C-1, CHANDIGARH

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

1) of the Act, the condonation of delay in filing of Form 9A & Form 10 by the Commissioners is not of any help to the assessee, as section 13(9) of the Act, inserted w.e.f. 01.04.20 16, stipulates twin conditions of filing of Form 9A/Form 10 and also of filing Return of Income before the due date. 2. Accordingly

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, R-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

condonation of delay was only for the purpose of accepting return and that otherwise it could not be said that delay was not attributable to the assessee. The Hon’ble High court in this backdrop of facts held that liability to pay interest on refund arises from the date when the claim for refund is made with all necessary particulars

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals. 3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 463/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case for discussion wherein assessee has raised the following effective grounds: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals