ROHIT JAIN, MANDI GOBINDGARH,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD- 1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, PUNJAB

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The assessee in this appeal has contested the two additions made by the AO. Firstly, of Rs.8,20,000/- on account of denial of claim of carry forward loss

M/S EMM BEE FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

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

delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 4. The facts in all the three appeals are exactly similar. Therefore, for convenience, the facts are being taken from ITA 1307/CHD/2019, for assessment year 2007-08. 5. In ITA 1307/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2007-08, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income

M/S EMM BEE FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

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

delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 4. The facts in all the three appeals are exactly similar. Therefore, for convenience, the facts are being taken from ITA 1307/CHD/2019, for assessment year 2007-08. 5. In ITA 1307/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2007-08, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income

M/S EMM BEE FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

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

delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 4. The facts in all the three appeals are exactly similar. Therefore, for convenience, the facts are being taken from ITA 1307/CHD/2019, for assessment year 2007-08. 5. In ITA 1307/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2007-08, the following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income

SUPER LIFESTYLE DIAMONDS PVT.LTD,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

condone the delay, if any and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its original return of income on 28.11.2015 declaring ‘nil’ income and claimed a carry forward of current loss

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

loss”. 6. In the light of above, if we peruse the explanation of the assessees for condonation of delay, then it would reveal that assessees have not adopted a strategy to make the appeal time barred for litigation against the Department. It was a bonafide human error. The simple reason is that by making the appeals time barred, they will

M/S SHAKTI SPINNERS LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

carried out by the Department at the business premises of the assessee, wherein, an amount of Rs. 1.15 crore was surrendered as business income and the detail of the amount surrendered is as under: PARTICULARS AMOUNT(Rs.) Stock in Trade 80,05,000/- Cash in Hand 5,10,000/- Building under construction 15,00,000/- TOTAL 1.00.15.000/- 4. The appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

carrying forward and to set off losses it is treated as one filed under sub section (1) or (2) cannot be pressed into service to claim it to be actually one such, though it is factually and really not be extending it beyond its legitimate purpose. " 5.5 Further, I place reliance on decisions of Hon'ble IT AT, where similar

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 7. A perusal of the ground of appeal would reveal that assessee has taken five grounds of appeal, however, his grievance revolves around two-fold of issues, namely ; a) The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the re- opening of assessment, A.Y.2008-09 6 b) The ld. CIT (Appeals

MOHINDER PAL SUTHAR,SIRSA vs. ITO, W-3, SIRSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed to the

Bench: Proceeding To Address The Grounds Raised By The Assessee, It Is Relevant To First Address The Delay Of 210

loss 4. That deponent has filed an Appeal No.827/Chandi/2019, which is pending before SMC, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench for 12.03.2020. In the said appeal, appellant/deponent has been directed to file his affidavit on the stamp paper in support of his earlier unstamped ITA 827/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page 4 of 9 affidavit for condonation of delay dated

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

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

Loss Account, it appeared that the firm had paid interest and carrying of Rs.93,82,166/- and bank interest of Rs.5,41,93,875/-, and had received interest and carrying of Rs.3,77,10,670/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the rate of interest allowed and charged. Details of tax deducted at source u/s 194A alongwith its payment into

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

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

Loss Account, it appeared that the firm had paid interest and carrying of Rs.93,82,166/- and bank interest of Rs.5,41,93,875/-, and had received interest and carrying of Rs.3,77,10,670/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the rate of interest allowed and charged. Details of tax deducted at source u/s 194A alongwith its payment into

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

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

Loss Account, it appeared that the firm had paid interest and carrying of Rs.93,82,166/- and bank interest of Rs.5,41,93,875/-, and had received interest and carrying of Rs.3,77,10,670/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the rate of interest allowed and charged. Details of tax deducted at source u/s 194A alongwith its payment into

M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 125/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Valco Industries Ltd., Vs The Dcit, Sco 37, Sector 26, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv5195J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Monga, Ca Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

loss”. 5. In the light of above, if we examine the record, then it would reveal that there is a checkered history of litigation in this case, namely; assessee has filed its return of income on 02.12.2004 declaring total income at Rs.80,87,602/-. An assessment order was passed on 21.12.2006 whereby income of the assessee was determined at Rs.2

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

loss”. 6. In the light of above, if we examine facts of the present case, then it would reveal that impugned order against which Department is in appeal, is open for debate while hearing the appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, any cross issue can be agitated by the assessee. It is also pertinent to note that Rule 27 of ITAT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

loss”.\n10. In the light of above, if we examine the facts of present\ncase, then it would reveal that assessee is agitating\njurisdictional issues in its Cross Objections in each\n assessment year. On all such issues, its Tax Consultant\ninitially opined for not litigating further with the Revenue. It\nwas a bonafide error

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

loss”.\n10. In the light of above, if we examine the facts of present\ncase, then it would reveal that assessee is agitating\njurisdictional issues in its Cross Objections in each\n assessment year. On all such issues, its Tax Consultant\ninitially opined for not litigating further with the Revenue. It\nwas a bonafide error

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. AB ALCOBEV PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross\nObjections of the assessee for

loss”.\n10. In the light of above, if we examine the facts of present\ncase, then it would reveal that assessee is agitating\njurisdictional issues in its Cross Objections in each\n assessment year. On all such issues, its Tax Consultant\ninitially opined for not litigating further with the Revenue. It\nwas a bonafide error