WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

234A, 234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

234A, 234B, and 234C was also charged. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order held as under: 5.1. The facts relevant for the present appeal: 5.1.1. The Appellant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacture of steel

TIRUPATI ENGINEERS AND CONTRUCTIONS,SANGRUR vs. ITO, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) submitted that during appellate proceedings, several notices under Section 250 were issued but the assessee failed to file any written submissions or attend hearings. Considering repeated non-compliance, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Relying on judicial precedents, it was observed that an appeal requires active prosecution and mere filing is insufficient. As the assessee provided no evidence or arguments in sup

234A, 234B, and 234D was also levied. 4. Against the order of the Ld. AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) submitted that during appellate proceedings, several notices under section 250 were issued but the assessee failed to file any written submissions or attend hearings. Considering repeated non-compliance

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)

section 57(iv) of the Act and 145A(b) of the Act to sustain the impugned addition. 4. That even otherwise the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed the order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the appellant and therefore the same is contrary to principle of natural justice and hence vitiated. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

234A, 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, as applicable. The calculation sheet is enclosed as the part of the assessment order. 13.2 Basis above assessment order dt. 24/03/2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, the Ld. AR vehemently contended that assessee has gone through the rigours of the proceedings under section

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

234A. In view of the above it is prayed that appeal of the appellant may kindly be accepted and oblige." 5.1 The assessee also submitted an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 for admission of the additional evidence which read as under: “Sub:- Application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income

SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ,KHARAR, RUPNAGAR vs. DCIT WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH JAO ITO 6(1) MOHALI, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

TDS by the assessee after A.Y. 2014-15 till date. e. Turning into a defaulter of a nationalized Bank (PNB) 2.4 The Ld. AO thus summarized his conclusion for each of the lender party and alleged that the primary ingredients of Sec.68 remained to be fulfilled for these lender entities and accordingly, the unsecured loans thus received by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1), MOHALI vs. SKYCITY BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KHRAR PUNJAB

In the result, the corresponding grounds as raised by the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1066/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Ward 6(1) बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Livestock Complex Vs. Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1217/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Ward 6(1) M/S Skycity Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.3, 1St Floor Sco-90, City Heart Livestock Complex Kharar-Chandigarh Road, Vs. Sector – 68, Mohali -160062 Kharar, Rupnagar (Punjab) - 140301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aapcs-2435-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2026

TDS by the assessee after A.Y. 2014-15 till date. e. Turning into a defaulter of a nationalized Bank (PNB) 2.4 The Ld. AO thus summarized his conclusion for each of the lender party and alleged that the primary ingredients of Sec.68 remained to be fulfilled for these lender entities and accordingly, the unsecured loans thus received by the assessee

AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

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

section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.” 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR addressing