THE BAROT CO-OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

36 before us. 1. That order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC. Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as NFAC was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: This Hon'Ble

condonation of delay order from CIT(Exemption), these grounds of the appellant fails. Addition made by CPC is hereby upheld. 6.2 Ground No. 5 & 6 are general in nature and hence Dismissed 7. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed". 2.9 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed this second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised

M/S SHAKTI SPINNERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

section 263 after a delay of 1740 days contending that there was a delay in filing appeal as income tax practitioner of assessee did not advise assessee to file appeal against order passed by Principal Commissioner under bona fide belief that order passed by Principal Commissioner was not appealable, mistake of lawyer or accountant was a good reason for condonation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. GURMEET SINGH PANDHER, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 4.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before the ITAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. KULWARAN SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 4.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before the ITAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. MOHAR SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 4.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before the ITAT

INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA vs. SH. SEWA SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 696/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Shri Sewa Singh, बनाम H. No. B-27,Focal Point, Patiala Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abjpj5347B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02 .07.2024 आदेश/Order

36(l)(va.) vis-a-vis that in the second provision to section 43B. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings. 3. From the appeal file it is seen that there is a delay in filing of the appeal by 1137 days. 4. In this regard, during

DCIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA vs. M/S THE BRITISH CO. ED. SCHOOL, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of Section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 4.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before the ITAT

ITO, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. KAWALJEET SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 5.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before the ITAT

ITO, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. KAWALJEET SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 5.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before the ITAT

ITO, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. KAWALJEET SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36(l)(va) would be attracted and provisions of section 43B, where due date is taken as date of filing of ITR, would not come to the rescue of the assessee. 5.3 It was further submitted that since the tax effect involved in this case was less than the prescribed monetary limit, for filing of further appeal before the ITAT

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

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

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

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

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

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