SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

221 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Sanjay Singal (HUF) बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMHS8301N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

221 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Sanjay Singal (HUF) बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMHS8301N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

221 /Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Sanjay Singal (HUF) बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi Central Circle-1 Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMHS8301N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal

RADHA MITTAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO- WARD 7(3), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in light

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavradha Mittal, Ito बनाम H. No. 85-A, Aggar Nagar, Ward- 7(3), Ludhiana- 141012 Ludhiana

221 (Cal.) • ITO v. Rajender Prasad Gupta (2010) 48 DTR 489 (JD) (Trib.) 5. It was further submitted that the notice u/s 148 was issued on the ground that the assessee has not disclosed the amount of long term capital gains on sale of shares whereas in the computation of income as per the original return of income as well

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

221 ITR 53 (SC), wherein it\n\n11\nwas held that grant of approval must not be a mere formality, but a\njudicial function to be exercised with due care, application of mind,\nand examination of relevant material. This legal position has been\nconsistently upheld by various High Courts and reaffirmed by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in multiple cases

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

221 ITR 53 (SC), wherein it\n11\nwas held that grant of approval must not be a mere formality, but a\njudicial function to be exercised with due care, application of mind,\nand examination of relevant material. This legal position has been\nconsistently upheld by various High Courts and reaffirmed by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, reinforcing

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

221 ITR 53 (SC), wherein it\n11\nwas held that grant of approval must not be a mere formality, but a\njudicial function to be exercised with due care, application of mind,\nand examination of relevant material. This legal position has been\nconsistently upheld by various High Courts and reaffirmed by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, reinforcing

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

221 ITR 53 (SC), wherein it\nwas held that grant of approval must not be a mere formality, but a\njudicial function to be exercised with due care, application of mind,\nand examination of relevant material. This legal position has been\nconsistently upheld by various High Courts and reaffirmed by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in multiple cases, reinforcing that

PUNJAB STATE COOP. BANK LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CL-2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result the impugned order of Ld

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

capital expenditure. b) Loss on sale of vehicles Rs.22,940/-. c) Rs.7,43,000/- on the basis of the audit report of the Chartered Account considering the same as being depicted in the Sundries Miscellaneous on account of OTS scheme. The addition made by the assessing officer is against the facts and the provisions of law. Hence the assessee filed