DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum\nof cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is\nsatisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting\nit within that period. This expression sufficient cause\nemployed in the section has also been used identically in sub-\nsection 3 of section

KISSAN FATS LTD.,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as and by way of second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by order dt. 01/05/2023 passed in first appeal bearing No. 10408/2012-13/IT/CIT(A)- 5/Ldh/2021-22 of Ld. CIT(A) under section 250(6) of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The assessee

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The\nAssessee is aggrieved by the order bearing number\nITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023-24/1063260786(1) dated 23/03/2024 passed\nby the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 of the Act which is hereinafter\nreferred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 2015-16 and\nthe corresponding previous year period is from

THE THANESAR CO-OP MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SOCIETY LIMITED,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA.

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as and by way of second appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064010515(1) dated 09.04.2024 passed by ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The ITA 640/CHD/2024

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

253 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) as and by way\nof second appeal before this Tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the\norder dt. 29/03/2010 passed in First Appeal No. 111/HSR/2016-17 which\npertains to the assessee. The order dt. 29/03/2010 is passed by\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2012. The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021-22/1041269023(1) dt. 22/03/2022 passed by the Ld. PCIT, Chandigarh -1 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is hereinafter referred

SHER SINGH,PALAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAMPUR

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

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

purchasing the wrist-watches, that is to say, Rs. 87,455 was correct and proper for the assessment year under reference. In this connection, section 69A may usefully be set out as follows : "69A. Unexplained money, etc.—Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AVINASH SINGLA, KHANNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 814 & 815/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2013-14 & 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Avinash Singla, Central Circle-1, बनाम C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Acypk9591N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Vs. Meenu Singla, बनाम Central Circle-1, C-47, C.O Avinash Ludhiana Industries, Focal Point, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No.Afips6556G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been used identically in sub-section 3 of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. AVINASH SINGLA, KHANNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

253 contemplates that the Tribunal\nmay admit an appeal or permit filing of memorandum of cross-\nobjections after expiry of relevant period, if it is satisfied that there\nwas a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. This\nexpression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been\nused identically in sub-section 3 of section

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of\nmemorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant\nperiod, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for\nnot presenting it within that period. This expression\nsufficient cause employed in the section has also been used\nidentically in sub-section 3 of section

SMT. GINNY SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of\nmemorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant\nperiod, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for\nnot presenting it within that period. This expression\nsufficient cause employed in the section has also been used\nidentically in sub-section 3 of section

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

253 contemplates that the\nTribunal may admit an appeal or permit filing of\nmemorandum of cross- objections after expiry of relevant\nperiod, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for\nnot presenting it within that period. This expression\nsufficient cause employed in the section has also been used\nidentically in sub-section 3 of section

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained commission expenses are also deleted in all these appeals as a consequence to the finding on main issue. " (emphasis supplied) 13.7 In the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal has followed the earlier decision of the (Delhi Bench) of the Tribunal in ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 50 the case

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained commission expenses are also deleted in all these appeals as a consequence to the finding on main issue. " (emphasis supplied) 13.7 In the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal has followed the earlier decision of the (Delhi Bench) of the Tribunal in ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 50 the case

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 30/01/2012 in the aforesaid appeal No. IT/315/2009-10/Sml is hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”. Factual Matrix 1. The assessee M/s Asha Technologies is a partnership firm. The relevant AY is 2007-08. The corresponding previous year is 2006-07. The assessee firm is engaged

M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,SIRMOUR vs. ADDL. CIT, SOLAN

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 30/01/2012 in the aforesaid appeal No. IT/315/2009-10/Sml is hereinafter referred to as “impugned order”. Factual Matrix 1. The assessee M/s Asha Technologies is a partnership firm. The relevant AY is 2007-08. The corresponding previous year is 2006-07. The assessee firm is engaged

SWARN GANGA JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before this Tribunal being aggrieved by an order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) for A.Y. 2017-18 dt. 05/09/2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The impugned order is passed by CIT(A) in terms of Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That survey u/s 133A

BABITA JAIN,AMBALA CITY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD -1 AMBALA, AMBALA CANTT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 corresponding to the Financial Year 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2017. The assessee derives her income from trading of sugar, edible oil and other food grain items. The assessee is aggrieved by order of Ld. CIT(A) bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057560878(1) dt. 31/10/2023 passed under section