RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

153D of the Act as mandatorily required. 2.5 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that subsequently, the Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice wherein he raised the issue with regard to the long term capital gain on Gold Coin for Rs. 5580/- and also on unsecured loan and income from house property. It was submitted that again

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

153D mechanically. 7. The ld. CIT DR has relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities below. According to her, it is a case of bogus Long Term Capital Gain earned on alleged purchase and sale of a penny stock. 8. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We find that issues agitated

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

Capital Gain exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. 7. The ld. CIT, thereafter took cognizance u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has set aside the assessment orders passed on 31.03.2015 in both years and relegated the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication vide his orders dated 22.02.2017. The AO, thereafter, passed

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

Capital Gain exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. 7. The ld. CIT, thereafter took cognizance u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has set aside the assessment orders passed on 31.03.2015 in both years and relegated the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication vide his orders dated 22.02.2017. The AO, thereafter, passed

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

153D was not set aside. Therefore, no fresh\napproval was required to be taken by the AO. To our mind,\nif this judgement is applied on the facts of present case,\nthen it would come out that approval granted by the CIT in\nthe assessment order framed on 31.03.2015 was not\ndisturbed by the CIT while exercising powers under Section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

153D\nwas not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required\nto be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is\napplied on the facts of present case, then it would come out\nthat approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order\nframed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while\nexercising powers under Section

SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

153D\nwas not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required\nto be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is\napplied on the facts of present case, then it would come out\nthat approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order\nframed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while\nexercising powers under Section

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

The appeals are partly allowed

153D\nwas not set aside. Therefore, no fresh approval was required\nto be taken by the AO. To our mind, if this judgement is\napplied on the facts of present case, then it would come out\nthat approval granted by the CIT in the assessment order\nframed on 31.03.2015 was not disturbed by the CIT while\nexercising powers under Section

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

capital gains of Rs. 10,46,354 (Rs. 20,12,000 – Rs. 9,65,646) and added this amount to the taxable income. Consequently, the total assessed income was revised to Rs. 15,56,812 (Rs. 4,46,680 + Rs. 63,778 + Rs 10,46,354). The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment

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

153D,\nas applicable) is vitiated in law as it was accorded in a mechanical\nmanner without due application of mind. The scheme of the Act\nmandates the Additional CIT to discharge a quasi-judicial function by\nindependently evaluating the issues raised in the draft assessment\norder, examining the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and\nconsidering the explanations

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

153D,\nas applicable) is vitiated in law as it was accorded in a mechanical\nmanner without due application of mind. The scheme of the Act\nmandates the Additional CIT to discharge a quasi-judicial function by\nindependently evaluating the issues raised in the draft assessment\norder, examining the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and\nconsidering the explanations

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

153D,\nas applicable) is vitiated in law as it was accorded in a mechanical\nmanner without due application of mind. The scheme of the Act\nmandates the Additional CIT to discharge a quasi-judicial function by\nindependently evaluating the issues raised in the draft assessment\norder, examining the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and\nconsidering the explanations

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

153D,\nas applicable) is vitiated in law as it was accorded in a mechanical\nmanner without due application of mind. The scheme of the Act\nmandates the Additional CIT to discharge a quasi-judicial function by\nindependently evaluating the issues raised in the draft assessment\norder, examining the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and\nconsidering the explanations

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised\nis dismissed

capital gains of\nRs.10,46,354 (Rs.20,12,000 – Rs.9,65,646) and added this amount to\nthe taxable income. Consequently, the total assessed income was\nrevised to Rs.15,56,812 (Rs.4,46,680 + Rs.63,778 + Rs 10,46,354). The\nAO also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for\nconcealment of income and issued a demand notice

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind and without consideration of relevant records. 2. That no search was conducted on the appellant company and otherwise also the alleged search, if any, conducted was in violation of provisions of section 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3.2 The additional Grounds 1 & 2 are legal grounds

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind and without consideration of relevant records. 2. That no search was conducted on the appellant company and otherwise also the alleged search, if any, conducted was in violation of provisions of section 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind and without consideration of relevant records. 2. That no search was conducted on the appellant company and otherwise also the alleged search, if any, conducted was in violation of provisions of section 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

153D was granted by the JCIT without application of mind and without consideration of relevant records. 2. That no search was conducted on the appellant company and otherwise also the alleged search, if any, conducted was in violation of provisions of section 132(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3.1 The additional Grounds 1 & 2 are legal grounds