RAJAN SETIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

condonation of delay of 3270 days in refiling the present appeal. The reasons given in the application is that there were certain objections and to remove those objections, sometime was taken to arrange relevant documents. The applicant had to consult various lawyers at Muktsar and after March 2020 on account of lock down, he was not able to consult

SHIV CHARAN GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

Bench: The Tribunal On 24.02.2020. [Ajay Tewari] Judge [Avneesh Jhingan] Judge January 20, 2020

Section 254(1) of the Act by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh 'A' Bench, Chandigarh in ITA No.491/CHD/2017 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] for assessment year 2004-05, declining the application for condonation of delay

KESAR SINGH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

1. ITA No. 330 of 2019 (O&M) Gurinderjit Singh .....Appellant Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 2. ITA No. 315 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents 3. ITA No. 316 of 2019 (O&M) Kesar Singh .....Appellant Vs. PR. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. ...Respondents

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) LUDHIANA vs. M/S PUNJAB RICE LAND PVT LTD

The Appeals are dismissed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

1. These applications are filed by the appellant(s) seeking condonation of delay of 166 days and 126 days in filing of the respective Appeals. 2. Having regard to the averments made in these applications, the same are allowed delay of 166 days and 126 days in filing of the respective appeals is hereby condoned. Suresh Kumar

PCIT ROHTAK vs. MS DIN DAYAL PURUSHOTAM LAL

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

delay is condoned. the order of the Income Tax decided by a common order in 6 and 2017-18. 4 ) t t ) t t f x n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.12.17 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ITA-110-2024(O 2. The Re be sub cancell Income 3. We hav ITAT w settled section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S RURAL EDUCATION AND WOMEN WELFARE SOCIETY

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

delay of 11 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. ITA No.434 of 2019: This appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.1.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Camp Bench at Jalandhar (for short, 'the Tribunal') allowing the appeal of the assessee and thereby holding it entitled for exemption/approval under Section

BAHADUR SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FARIDABAD AND ANOTHER

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Section 54B of the Act. 5. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant lacks merit. 6. It is an undisputed fact that after selling the agricultural land the appellant purchased a land worth his share, in the name of his wife. The issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Dinesh Verma's case (supra

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEW DELHI vs. MANJIT SINGH BAIDWAN

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

1. The pre wherein a s b ju L &M) HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( )-II, NEW DELHI Vs. NGH BAIDWAN **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SU **** Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standi for the appellant. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) -2023 Application for condonation of wed and accordingly delay