SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons"\nbased on seized material. However, the legal position has now been\nsettled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of\nPrincipal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., reported in 150\nTaxmann.com 257, wherein it was categorically held that:-\n\"In respect of completed or non-pending assessment years

ROSHA ALLOYS P LIMITED, AMLOH ROAD, VILLAGE TURAN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons\" based\non seized material. However, the legal position has now been\nsettled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of\nPrincipal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., reported in 150\nTaxmann.com 257, wherein it was categorically held that:-\n\"In respect of completed or non-pending assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons" based on seized material. However, the legal position has now been\nsettled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of\nPrincipal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., reported in 150\nTaxmann.com 257, wherein it was categorically held that:-\n\"In respect of completed or non-pending assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA vs. ROSHA ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MANDI GOBINDGARH

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,\nwhereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed

153C was also automatic in respect of “other persons\"\nbased on seized material. However, the legal position has now been\nsettled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of\nPrincipal CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., reported in 150\nTaxmann.com 257, wherein it was categorically held that:-\n\"In respect of completed or non-pending assessment years

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

gain. (iii) reference is made to an alleged re-cast of loan from petitioner to Hubtown Limited into an advance against property during year ended 31st March 2019 and the same is not relevant to Assessment Year 2017-2018. (f) Accordingly, it is irrefutable that no incriminating material relating to petitioner has been found during proceedings under Section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN SITU) CIRCLE-I, , LUDHIANA vs. KAPIL THAPAR, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and Cross

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

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Vikram Sujit Kumar Bhatia' reported in 453 ITR page 417 and that binding judgment have been ignored in a summary manner. 3. That the re-opening of the assessment whether u/s 148 or 153C goes to the root

RAWALPINDI CO-OP CINEMA SOCIETY LIMITED SOCIETY CINEMA LUDHIANA, PUNJAB,LUDHIANA, PUNAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

Capital Gain was calculated at Rs. 2,72,48,404/-. 7. Now, the department is in appeal before the Hon'ble Bench on account of relief of Rs. 13,25,09,886/- as allowed by the CIT(A) to the Assessee and the Assessee is in appeal for balance addition. Proceedings as initiated u/sec 153C of the Act are invalid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRLCE-2, LUDHIANA vs. RAWALPINDI CO-OP CINEMA SOCIETY LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 180/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rawalpindi Co-Op Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Cinema Society Ltd., Central Circle-2, Society Cinema, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 552/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dcit, Vs. Rawalpindi Co-Op Cinema Central Circle-2, बनाम Society Ltd., Ludhiana Society Cinema, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaar0233K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025

Capital Gain was calculated at Rs. 2,72,48,404/-. 7. Now, the department is in appeal before the Hon'ble Bench on account of relief of Rs. 13,25,09,886/- as allowed by the CIT(A) to the Assessee and the Assessee is in appeal for balance addition. Proceedings as initiated u/sec 153C of the Act are invalid

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

capital gains earned on the transactions of these shares deserves to be treated as bogus and required to be added as an income of the Assessee. In response to the show cause notice to the Assessee, the Assessee has filed all documentary evidence, i.e., contract note, purchase note and how sale price was received by assessees through banking channels

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

capital gains\nearned on the transactions of these shares deserves to be treated as\nbogus and required to be added as an income of the Assessee. In\nresponse to the show cause notice to the Assessee, the Assessee has\nfiled all documentary evidence, i.e., contract note, purchase note and\nhow sale price was received by assessees through banking channels.\nThe

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

153C of the Income Tax Act was issued on 19.09.2021. The assessee has filed its return of income on 25.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.3,69,86,500/-. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The AO has passed the A.Y.2018-19 3 assessment order on 30.09.2021. He has computed the income as under : Returned

M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

2. The brief facts of the case are that a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted in the group cases of AFI Group of companies. This search was conducted on 25.04.2018 and a survey was conducted on the premises of the assessee. During the course of search, certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNA NAGAR vs. RAJESH KHANNA, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

153C ITA 62, 230/CHD/2024 & S.A.11/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 14 of the Act were not invoked and instead, the re-opening has been initiated u/s 147 of the Act after 01.04.2021, which is specifically barred by the second proviso to Section 149 of the Act. In this regard, reliance has been sought to be placed on the order dated 19.03.2024, rendered

RAJESH KHANNA,NEELKANTH PLYWOOD, YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA

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

153C ITA 62, 230/CHD/2024 & S.A.11/CHD/2024 A.Y.2018-19 14 of the Act were not invoked and instead, the re-opening has been initiated u/s 147 of the Act after 01.04.2021, which is specifically barred by the second proviso to Section 149 of the Act. In this regard, reliance has been sought to be placed on the order dated 19.03.2024, rendered

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

153C - valuation of properties referred to District Valuation Officer (DVO) - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- No reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal as no material was found in the search and seizure operations, which would justify the A0's action in referring the matter to the DVO for his opinion on valuation of the said