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

3. These applications are filed by the appellant(s) seeking condonation of delay of 84 days and 71 days in re-filing of the respective Appeals. 4. Having regard to the averments made in these applications, the same are allowed delay of 84 days and 71 days in re-filing of the respective appeals is hereby condoned

PUNJAB AGRO INDIA CORPORATION LIMITED vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(1), CHANDIGARH

Appeal stands dismissed in terms

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

delay of 212 days in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA-235-2019 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 5.4.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh in ITA No. 05/CHD/2009 for the assessment year 2005-06 received on 3.5.2018, claiming the following questions

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

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

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

condonation of wed and accordingly delay is con -2023 Exemption application is allowed esent appeal assails the order pas n the Tribunal has held as under: “5. On the other hand, t assessee supporting the order pas submitted that since the order pass based on the provisions of law and udgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat H Leena Jugal Kishore

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

3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that in the afore-said judgment, this Court has not considered the case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 0278 and in view of Gurnam Singh's case (supra), the SHAM SUNDER 2020.02.13 11:21 I attest to the authenticity and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

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

delay of 76 and 124 days in refilling the respective appeals is condoned. ITA No.152-2023 ITA No.1149-2023 We dispose of both the aforesaid appeals with a common order as those have arisen out of the same impugned orders. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by the Pr. Commissioners of Income Tax as well as affirmation order