SH. RAJIV KUMAR,MOHALI vs. ITO , WARD -1,, SANGRUR

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

Condonation of delay of 37 days in filing Appeal for A.Y. 2019-20T keeping in view of Covered matter in favour of assessee by the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench and also keeping in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment relaxed the delay due to Covid-19 Hon'ble Sir /Madam, Most respectfully, I, Rajiv Kumar, submit

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

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 the course of hearing, the Ld. DR submitted that the Department

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

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 by the due date as held in Section

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)

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, the appeal was not filed at initial stage. Further

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)

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, the appeal was not filed at initial stage. Further

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)

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, the appeal was not filed at initial stage. Further

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)

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, the appeal was not filed at initial stage. Further

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)

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, the appeal was not filed at initial stage. Further

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)

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, the appeal was not filed at initial stage. Further

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)

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, the appeal was not filed at initial stage. Further

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

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

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

KISHNA RAM,SIRMOUR HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NAHAN, NAHAN

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condoned, as sufficient cause has been shown, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The assessee, Shri Kishan Ram, a resident individual, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021–22 electronically on 10.01.2022, declaring total income of Rs.4,42,210/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, under section 143(1) of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. NEW FATEHGARH SAHIB SIRHIND BUS TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., SIRHIND

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc

Section 43B where the due date is taken of filing of ITR would not come to the rescue of the assessee. The decision of Supreme Court is dated 12.10.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016. Hence, point of law in favour of Department. Therefore, delay should be condoned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. NEW FATEHGARH SAHIB SIRHIND BUS TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., SIRHIND

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Under Section 139(1) Of The Act, The Cpc Has Relied

Section 43B where the due date is taken of filing of ITR would not come to the rescue of the assessee. The decision of Supreme Court is dated 12.10.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016. Hence, point of law in favour of Department. Therefore, delay should be condoned

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

Section 43B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred to upheld the assessment order/intimation dated 07-07-2020 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, CPC Bangalore u/s 143(3) of the Act with regard to disallowance

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

Section 43B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred to upheld the assessment order/intimation dated 07-07-2020 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, CPC Bangalore u/s 143(3) of the Act with regard to disallowance

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

Section 43B of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred to upheld the assessment order/intimation dated 07-07-2020 passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, CPC Bangalore u/s 143(3) of the Act with regard to disallowance