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

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

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

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 A.Y.2008-09 3 employed in the section has also been used identically in sub- section 3 of section

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Revenue is aggrieved by the order no. ITBA/FAC/250/2022- 23/1044150537(1) dt. 22/07/2022 of the Ld. CIT(A) passed under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. 2. At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the Revenue is time barred

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) as and by way of second appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order OF CIT(A) bearing No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053342436(1) dated 31.05.2023 which is ITA 454/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 2 hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order” which is passed under Section

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before us against the aforesaid order dt. 20/01/2023 which is hereinafter referred to as the impugned order. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The assessee for the aforesaid business of running a hotel has been maintaining a complete set of books of account which are duly audited by a chartered accountant. Further, on the basis

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

253 of the Act and has interalia raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. That the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ludhiana vide appeal No. 47/ROT(10725)/CHD/IT/CIT(A)-4/LDH/2016-17 dated 22.06.2018 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Commissioner

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

253(1)(c)(ii) in appeal has jurisdiction to determine its legality, validity and proprietary in a manner challenged before us, even after consequential order is passed; even if it is against the assessee partially in our considered view and that there is no embargo legally or otherwise. 10.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee has challenged the aforesaid

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

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

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before us against the aforesaid order dt. 03/02/2023 which is hereiafter referred to as the impugned order. Factual Matrix 3. The assessee had for the relevant year i.e; A.Y. 2019-20 was also engaged in the same business i.e; manufacturing of PVC pipes and had filed his return of income under section

SH. PARDEEP KUMAR,AMBALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253 days as pointed out by the Registry. 3. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has shifted his residence and in view of the same, no order under section 263 was ever served or received by him. It was submitted that it is only on receipt of the notice under section 142(1) consequent

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

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 ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 3 it within that period. This expression sufficient cause employed in the section has also been

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

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

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). The relevant assessment year is 2019-20, the corresponding previous year is the Financial Year 2018-19 i.e. 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bearing number ITBA/Rev 5/2023- 24/1061725348 (1) dated