SUNDEEP KAPILA,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 275(1)(c), the relevant date is the date of reference by the Assessing Officer, i.e., 26.06.2023, and therefore the last permissible date for passing the penalty order was 31.12.2023. Since the order was passed on 28.02.2024, it is clearly beyond the prescribed limitation. 17. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the limitation should be reckoned from

SUNDEEP KAPILA,HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section 275(1)(c), the relevant date is the date of reference by the Assessing Officer, i.e., 26.06.2023, and therefore the last permissible date for passing the penalty order was 31.12.2023. Since the order was passed on 28.02.2024, it is clearly beyond the prescribed limitation. 17. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the limitation should be reckoned from

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

MUKESH MALHOTRA,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

MUKESH MALHOTRA ,SHIMLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

275/-, thereafter the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by issuing a notice under section 148 dated 26.06.2015. In response, the assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148.In addition to hotel business and other sources

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

275/- it was submitted that it was used for purchase of material at the site of Sanjauli for urgent requirement. Owing to the business expediency, the amount involved in the purpose intended we hereby delete the addition made on account of cash purchase which was required on urgent basis. 6. Ground No. 5 relates to addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

275 /Chd/ 2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Pardeep Kumar बनाम The ITO S/o Shri Somnath Ward-3 Vill: Dhakola, P.O: Saha, Ambala, Haryana Dist: Ambala-133001, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVEPK7216H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

275 /Chd/ 2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Pardeep Kumar बनाम The ITO S/o Shri Somnath Ward-3 Vill: Dhakola, P.O: Saha, Ambala, Haryana Dist: Ambala-133001, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVEPK7216H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

275 /Chd/ 2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Pardeep Kumar बनाम The ITO S/o Shri Somnath Ward-3 Vill: Dhakola, P.O: Saha, Ambala, Haryana Dist: Ambala-133001, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVEPK7216H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

275 /Chd/ 2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Pardeep Kumar बनाम The ITO S/o Shri Somnath Ward-3 Vill: Dhakola, P.O: Saha, Ambala, Haryana Dist: Ambala-133001, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CVEPK7216H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : None राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal