AKM RESORTS,MOHALI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act] before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058979375 (1)dated 21.12.2023 passed by the CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Act. The relevant assessment year is 2016-17 and the ITA 42/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 2 corresponding previous year period

INDER PAL SINGH LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED SATNAM SINGH 171789, STREET NO.8, GURU TEG BAHADUR JAGRAON,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JAGRAON , PUNJAB

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)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is aggrieved by the Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056979491(1) dated 11/10/2023 of Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”. Brief Factual Matrix 2. In the instant case, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee

SURINDER SINGH RYAIT,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity and ease) before this Tribunal. The assesse is aggrieved by the order bearing number: 09/IT/CIT(A)-5/LDH/2017-18 dt. 29/08/2019 passed under section 154 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2018 of the ld. CIT(A) passed in respect of appeal No. 10085/17-18/A.Y. 2014-15 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”. ITA 126/CHD/2019 ITA 103/CHD/2019 ITA 125/CHD/2019 ITA 44/CHD/2021 3 3. The core issue before the ld. CIT(A) and before

AL RASHEED CHARITABLE SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. JCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) as and by way of\nsecond appeal. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing number\nITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054714788(1) dated 28/07/2023 of CIT(A)\nunder section 250 of the Act passed in First Appeal u/s 246A of the Act\nwhich is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2 KAITHAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA ROAD KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms of section 250 of the Act has sustained the aforesaid order imposing penalty which

RAM KUMAR,NEHRU GARDEN COLONY vs. ITO WARD 2, KAITHAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1) of the Act. 28. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Ld. AO dt. 26/06/2019 exercised his right of first appeal and preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061111793(1) dt. 19/02/2024 passed in terms of section 250 of the Act has sustained the aforesaid order imposing penalty which

JAGROOP SINGH,BARNALA vs. ITO, W-1, BARNALA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) Dt. 08/01/2024 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 250(6) Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant A.Y. Is 2012-13 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2011 To 31/03/2012. 2. Factual Matrix

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/105946628(1) dt. 08/01/2024 passed by the CIT(A) under section 250(6) of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 2012-13 and the corresponding previous

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC(1) is also initiated for addition of Rs.44,70,000/- which is taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of Income tax Act, 1961. 5. After examining the records available and information/documents and explanation submitted by the assessee and to the above remarks, total income assessed as under: Total Income As per return

J.K.EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

J.K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

J. K. EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JAMMU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2009-10. 2. All these cases are heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. With the consent of both the parties, appeal in ITA No. 126/Asr/2019 for A.Y 2008-09 was taken as a lead case wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

THE SHAHABAD COOP. SUGAR MILLS,SHAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KURUKSHETRA

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 11/03/2018 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order, Before This Tribunal In Form No. 36 Has Interalia Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 11/03/2018 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order, before this Tribunal in Form No. 36 has interalia raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the addition of Rs.465647/- as interest on share investment is not justified when

SH. AMAN SETH,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

253 is filed by the Assessee who is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Ludhiana bearing No. 172/ROT/IT/CIT(A)-2/LDH/2016-17 dt. 05/06/2017 under section 250 of the Act. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee fled a return of income of Rs. 10,61,330/- electronically on 23/09/2013

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 25. The Assessee feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the AO’s order dt. 26/12/2016 had filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order has dismissed the same. The core finding of CIT(A) is as follows