GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 119(2)(b) must be interpreted liberally to avoid hyper-technical disallowances that contradict the purpose of the Income Tax Act." vi). Shree Jain SwetamberMurtipujakTapagachha Sangh v. CIT (Exemption): "Substantial justice must take precedence over technical compliance issues, particularly for charitable trusts." 5.6 Further, our reference was drawn to the written submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which

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

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

90 days, that longer period shall apply. III. The period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

MINING OFFICER,MOHALI vs. ITO(TDS)-2, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Appellate Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal. Your Faithfully For Mining Office, Mohali & Ropar (Mining Officer)

90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisions (b) and(c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments

PUKHRAJ SINGH GUJRAL,CHANDIGARH vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Final Hearing

delay is condoned. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication 6. In the present appeal, the Assessee / Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. That the CPC is bad, and against law and facts 2. The CPC is erred in not giving benefit of Rs. 10,32,088/- as taxes paid outside India while passing the rectification order

SUKHDEV SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KURUKSHETRA, KURUKSHETRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1142/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sukhdev Singh, The Ito, Village-Dheerpur, Ward No. 3, Po-Khanpur Koliyan, Vs Kurukshetra. Tehsil-Thanesar, Kurukshetra. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Etgps8505H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

90 days) to file the subject cross-objections thus, there is effectively delay of 58 days in filing the subject cross-objection. 21. It was further submitted that the delay of 68 days is neither intentional nor deliberate and has occurred on account of the following reasons, which were bona fide and beyond the control of the Assessee company

AMIT SINGH,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) On 24.12.2022, Resulting In A Delay Of 119 Days.

section 90 and DTAA provisions. 6.4 Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is condoned

SOCIIETY FOR KIDNEY CARE,SHIMLA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

condone the delay in filing Cross\nObjection because there was no malafide intention. The\nassessee has not adopted a delaying strategy to litigate with\nthe Revenue.\n10.1 Apart from above, we are of the view that since legal\nissues are being raised by the assessee in its Cross\nObjections, therefore, Rule 27 of ITAT Rules empowers it as a\nrespondent

SH. SHEO RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Guptash. Sheo Ram, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Village Jaroda, Ward 3, Jagadhari. Yamunanagar. Pan: Fhcps9095D (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay. This order was pronounced in open court in the presence of both the parties and hearing of the appeal was thereafter directed to be proceeded with. 6. We shall now proceed to adjudicate the appeal before us. Brief background of the case is that the Assessing Officer had information about sale of half share of land

NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

delay be condoned and income of 23,72,554 (Rs. 21,18,827 for VRS, Rs. 1,57,715 for gratuity and Rs. 96012 for Leave Encashment) may please be reduced and Balance Tax of Rs. 4,15,805 be refunded along with due interest. 4. The learned National Faceless CIT(A) erred in not considering additional claim of appellant

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." ii) 205 CTR 444 (All) CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." ii) 205 CTR 444 (All) CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 68 in as much as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed." ii) 205 CTR 444 (All) CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain