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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. PARTAP INDUSTRIES LIMITED, RAJPURA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

1) (va) wherein it has been clarified that provisions of section 43B shall be deemed to never have been applied for the purposes of determining the "due date" under section 36(l)(va). Deeming provisions are to be given strict interpretation as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High 464-Chd-2023 Partap Industries Limited, Rajpura 4 Court

TDS PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

condoned. 7. Brief facts of the case are as under: “1. The appellant is into the business of manpower supply and recruitment since 2007. Appellant had e f iled the ITR on 31.10.2018 and the due date was also u/s 139 was 31.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 13971318/-. 2. ITR was processed by the CPC and accordingly order issued

TDS PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

condoned. 7. Brief facts of the case are as under: “1. The appellant is into the business of manpower supply and recruitment since 2007. Appellant had e f iled the ITR on 31.10.2018 and the due date was also u/s 139 was 31.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 13971318/-. 2. ITR was processed by the CPC and accordingly order issued

TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MOHALI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-6(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

condoned. 7. Brief facts of the case are as under: “1. The appellant is into the business of manpower supply and recruitment since 2007. Appellant had e f iled the ITR on 31.10.2018 and the due date was also u/s 139 was 31.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 13971318/-. 2. ITR was processed by the CPC and accordingly order issued

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETHOS LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee I

Bench: Sh. Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble Vice- & Sh. Krinwant Sahay, Hon’Ble(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No.873/Chandi/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22

36(1)(va) is unwarranted and inequitable, and should therefore be set aside. 4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred in law and on facts by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer regarding the addition of 27,39,787/- under Section

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