DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. ESSIX BIOSCIENCES LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is

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

272A(2)(i), for which, separate provision/procedure is prescribed under the Act. 11. Further, as held in “Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1) Vs Swastik Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.” (supra), once the contents of the Form 26A were not doubted or disputed by the AO, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section

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)

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 are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

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)

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 are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

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)

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 are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

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)

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 are contained at pages 43 to 45 of the assessee’s paper

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

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

272A (1)(d) of the Income-tax Act,1961 shall be initiated for noncompliance with statutory notices. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, a show cause notice vide DIN & Notice No ITBA/AST/F/143(3)(SCN)/20 21-22/1035081559(1) Dated 25/08/2021 was issued to the assessee in e-portal of faceless assessment giving opportunity to explain

KAMBOJ TRADING COMPANY,GURUHARSAHAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, LUDHIANA

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

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

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 25/09/2019 and was duly served on the assessee. Thereafter the case was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana vide order u/s 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 bearing No. F.No. Pr.CIT- 1/Amritsar/2020- 21/979 dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Pr. CIT-1, Amritsar. Vide notification No.S.O.2033E dated

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

272A(1)(d) of the IT. Act for non compliance of notice sent to the assessee online electronically in E-proceedings facility through assessee's account in e- filing website of Income Tax Department.” 6. A bare and simple perusal of Ld. AO order clearly shows that assessee was totally non responsive to any notices issued

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

272A(1)(c) was issued to Smt. Rajni Verma and Smt.Kamlesh Verma, Partners of the assessee firm, calling for explanation on 10,12.2009. Nobody attended the hearing nor did the assesee furnish any information. Summons u/s 131 were again issued to the partners vide this office letter No.3675 dated 3676 dated 10.12.2009. However, nobody attended the office

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

272A(1)(c) was issued to Smt. Rajni Verma and Smt.Kamlesh Verma, Partners of the assessee firm, calling for explanation on 10,12.2009. Nobody attended the hearing nor did the assesee furnish any information. Summons u/s 131 were again issued to the partners vide this office letter No.3675 dated 3676 dated 10.12.2009. However, nobody attended the office