DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assesses, themselves, declared income in question and paid the due taxes. There was no difference between the offered income and the taxed income. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata-II Vs. Palani Investment & Industries Corporation Ltd.’, (2016) 67 taxman.com 60 has held that

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

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

PRABHNOOR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 904/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Prabhnoor Singh, Vs The Ito, B-408, Meda Heights, Ward 6(1), Bellandur, Doddakannelli Road, Chandigarh. Near Aet Circle, Bangalore. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Dcjps5821M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Preeti Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025

378 d) Decision of ITAT Bangalore Bench dated 19.09.2022 in the case of Shri Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma Vs ITO (ITA No.708/Bang/2022) e) Decision of the Madras High Court in case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy [TS-681 -HC-2023-(MAD)] dated 6 October 2023. f) Decision of Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Shri Ritesh Kumar Garg Vs ITO Jaipur

GURMELO DEVI,JAGADHARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, YUMNANAGAR

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

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

378 Village Kail Yamunanagar Haryana-135003 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DKLPD2247C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/07/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/07/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR