HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending,\nwherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on\n19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated 07.08.2025.\n1.4 The appellant, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare\nBoard, is a statutory body

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending,\nwherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on\n19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated 07.08.2025.\n\n1.4 The appellant, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare\nBoard, is a statutory

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending,\nwherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on\n19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated 07.08.2025.\n\n1.4 The appellant, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare\nBoard, is a statutory

ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S LONGIA ENGINEERS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS u/s 194C and are not forming part of receipts of Rs 1,30,94,241/- as shown in Form 26AS. The fact that the labour charges are not treated as works contracts under VAT laws doesn't take the same outside the ambit of section 194C of the Act. The receipts thus disclosed by the assessee in its profit/loss

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

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

TDS and TCS, the assessee has shown interest received from land acquisition at Rs. 2,79,08,506.00 and compensation received under land acquisition at Rs, 4,86,426.00, both aggregated to Rs. 2,83,94,932.00. This has been claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. That as per Annexure to notice

JANTA LAND PROMOTERS PVT LTD,MOHALI vs. THE PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

144B on 26.09.2022 for A.Y. 2020-21 was held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and was set aside for fresh verification on multiple issues on the grounds mentioned in the appeal. 2. Ld. AR submitted that the show-cause under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961,extracted

SUKHDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

TDS) was effected and reflected in Form 26AS, but this amount was not offered for taxation in the ITR. Consequently, the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 24.04.2020. The Assessee subsequently furnished a return declaring the same income and arguing that the interest received under

KUSUM CHAUHAN ,JAGADHARI HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 YAMUNANAGAR , JAGADHARI

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 144B of the Act on 26-12-2024.Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, the sole grievance of the assessee is the fact that certain interest income of Rs.15,13,626/- has been brought to tax by Ld. AO. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the case of the assessee and referred to variousjudicial decisionsfavoring the assessee

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

144B and made various additions including ₹3,60,17,756 on account of alleged bogus purchases, along with other disallowances. D. The assessee submitted that all purchases were genuine and supported by documentary evidence such as GST returns (GSTR-2A), purchase invoices, bank statements, supplier confirmations, and books of account. E. It was argued that GST registrations of suppliers were

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs. 2435095/- on payment of interest of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- under section 194A. Further scrutiny of the case records revealed that as per profit & loss account, total expenditure was Rs. 1,40,14,722/- (expenditure on interest was only 11053024) against expenditure of Rs. 2,43,50,911/- on interest alone. This expenditure

SHARMANJI YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

144B of the Act on 28-09-2022. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the assessment order and made out a case of one of the possible views as taken by Ld. AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR contended that sufficient explanations and documents were already furnished by the assessee during the course

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

144B of the Act, wherein returned\nincome of Rs.19,23,970/- of the assessee was accepted.\n\n\n2.6 That by impugned order the Ld. PCIT in exercise of power\nconferred upon him has set aside the aforesaid assessment order dt.\n23/03/2022 by observing as under:\n\n6. In view of the foregoing, it is held that the assessment

MARKANDA OIL STORE,SHAHABAD HARYANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURUKSHETRA

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dt. 25/01/2022. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has paid interest amounting to Rs. 8,31,518/- without deduction of TDS

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, I hereby set aside the impugned assessment order dated 20.09.2022, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Needless to state, the Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the explanation and supporting evidence submitted

AVON CYCLES LIMITED,G.T ROAD, DHANDARI KALAN, LUDHIANA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 705/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs The Pcit-I, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं/.Pan No: Aabca4140R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Pcit"), Dated 27.03.2025, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantive Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Ld. Pcit -1, Ludhiana, Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming The Jurisdiction To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act To Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) When The Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order Passed By Ld. Pcit(1), Ludhiana, Being Illegal Unjustified & Against The Provisions Of Section 263 May Be Annulled. 2. That Ld. Pcit (1) Erred In Law & On Facts In Setting Aside The Order Of Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) By Applying The Different Approach On The Same Set Of Facts On The Issues Already Considered By The Assessing Officer.

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, I hereby set aside the impugned assessment order dialed 26 12.2022, passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Needless to state, the Assessing Officer shall give the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the explanation and supporting evidence submitted

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -1, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 142(1) and obtained a copy of the court order, a perusal of the assessment order reveals that there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. The assessment order does not refer to section 56(2)(viii) or section 57(iv), nor does it examine the effect of the amendments introduced