M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

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

bogus purchases had been ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 31 made; that since the additions in such type of cases depend on the facts of each case, the provisions of Section 263

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 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

section 263, of the Incometax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - After completion of assessment, Commissioner received a complaint from

PRIME STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SEMI INDUSTRY PLOT NO.-27, ANAJ MANDI DIRBA, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,SANGRUR, PUNJAB vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NFAC, THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, DCIT CIRCLE PATIALA, PATIALA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 275/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Prime Steel Industries Private Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 500/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Dcit, Vs. Prime Steel Industries Private बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate & Shri Viboore Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

section 263, of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - After completion of assessment, Commissioner received a complaint

DCIT, PATIALA vs. PRIME STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, DIRBA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed whereas, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 275/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Prime Steel Industries Private Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 500/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The Dcit, Vs. Prime Steel Industries Private बनाम Circle, Limited, Semi Industry, Patiala Plot No. 27, Anaj Mandi Dibra, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagca3988E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate & Shri Viboore Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

section 263, of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - After completion of assessment, Commissioner received a complaint

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

section 263, of the Incometax Act, 1961\nUnexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - After completion of assessment,\nCommissioner received a complaint from

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263 the\nPCIT has been even vested with power of “making or causing to be\nmade such inquiry as he deems necessary" but in the instant case\nno such even bare or primafacie inquiry with regard to purchase\ncontract notes which was alleged to have been as bogus

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)

purchases made or commission paid was bogus, assessment order could not have been set aside under section 263. 12.8 Reliance

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

bogus and therefore, AO has rightly made the addition. 18. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Though the order passed by the ld. Commissioner dated 27.02.2017 under Section 263 attained finality but a perusal of this order would indicate that whole premises of this order is based upon the construction of the position

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

bogus and therefore, AO has rightly made the addition. 18. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Though the order passed by the ld. Commissioner dated 27.02.2017 under Section 263 attained finality but a perusal of this order would indicate that whole premises of this order is based upon the construction of the position

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

bogus and therefore, AO has rightly made the addition. 18. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Though the order passed by the ld. Commissioner dated 27.02.2017 under Section 263 attained finality but a perusal of this order would indicate that whole premises of this order is based upon the construction of the position

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

bogus and it was of a penny\nstock. He has not conducted any enquiry.\n17.1 On the other hand ld. CIT DR relied upon the orders of\nthe Revenue Authorities. He further relied upon the following\njudgements:\n1. Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of\nSanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs Pr.CIT - ITA 18/2017\n2. Judgement

SANDHYA GOEL H.NO.101217, HUDA, JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

263 of the Income Tax Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT has further erred in directing the AO to frame a denovo assessment. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed her return of income

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

The appeals are partly allowed

263 against an\nassessment order passed under Section 153A/143(3) dated\n31.03.2015. A perusal of the complete assessment order\nwould reveal that nothing is being possessed by the AO. He\nsimply made reference of some report by the Director of\nInvestigation, Calcutta but we have reproduced the reference\nof this Report in the assessment order, in the upper part

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

The appeals are partly allowed

263 against an\nassessment order passed under Section 153A/143(3) dated\n31.03.2015. A perusal of the complete assessment order\nwould reveal that nothing is being possessed by the AO. He\nsimply made reference of some report by the Director of\nInvestigation, Calcutta but we have reproduced the reference\nof this Report in the assessment order, in the upper part

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

263 against an\nassessment order passed under Section 153A/143(3) dated\n31.03.2015. A perusal of the complete assessment order\nwould reveal that nothing is being possessed by the AO. He\nsimply made reference of some report by the Director of\nInvestigation, Calcutta but we have reproduced the reference\nof this Report in the assessment order, in the upper part

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

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)

263 of the Act it is noted as under: “5.1. I have carefully examined the facts of the case and It is evident that the assessee has received interest on enhanced compensation during the assessment year under consideration which ought to be treated as "income from other sources" and should have been taxed accordingly, under the head "income from other