M/S EMSONS ORGANICS LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Addressing The Same, Parties Were Heard On The Delay Of 615 Days Pointed Out By The Registry In Each Of The Appeals Filed.

36. 5. That Sh. Rajeev Goyal and Smt. Alka Goyal are the directors of the company. 6. That the Company has been lying defunct since 2012 and no business is being conducted. 7. That I B. K. Bhola, the undersigned has the GPA from Sh. Rajeev Goyal to sign appeal and other related documents on his behalf. Copy

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

EMSON TOOLS MFG. CORPN. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT/DCIT- 1, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

condone the delay which was beyond the control of the assessee and the appeal is admitted. 5. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in upholding addition of Rs. 1188745/- towards late deposit of EPF without appreciating that it has been deposited before filing

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. 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. 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

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

36(1)(va) as well as Section 43B carried out by Finance Act, 2021 and Memorandum explaining ITA 460&461 /CHD/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 & 2019-20 Page 8 of 9 the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 we hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable. Hence, the addition is directed to be deleted as the amount stood deposited

SMT. ASHMI GUPTA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD VI(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

condoned and now I proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to the addition made to the income of the assessee in the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act, by disallowing delayed payments of employees contribution to ESI and PF amounting to Rs.407,240/- by invoking the provisions

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,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 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