SH. DINESH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7.\nBoth the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment order passed under Section 153A read with\nSection

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

The appeals are partly allowed

delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment order passed under Section 153A read with\nSection

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

The appeals are partly allowed

delay, rather due to some financial implications,\nthe appeals could not be filed within time. We condone the\ndelay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit.\n7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of\nappeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original\nassessment order passed under Section 153A read with\nSection

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

delay in filing the present appeal is sufficiently explained and the same is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical in both the years. With the consent of both the parties

JARNAIL SINGH,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

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

delay in filing the present appeal is sufficiently explained and the same is hereby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical in both the years. With the consent of both the parties

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

penni stock, tax effect circular will not be applicable. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take the facts mainly from ITA No. 321/CHD/2019 assessment year 2010-11. The other relevant facts from ITA 322/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 would be taken note according to requirement. 5. The assessee

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 4. As the facts, issues and circumstances in both the appeals are identical, therefore, we take the facts mainly from ITA No. 321/CHD/2019 assessment year 2010-11. The other relevant facts from ITA 322/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2011-12 would be taken note according to requirement. 5. The assessee

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

condone\nthe delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merits.\n9.\nThe facts on all vital points are common in all the three years,\nrather, order of ld. CIT(A) is verbatim same except variation in the\ndates and quantum of the additions. Therefore, for the facility of\nreference, we are taking up facts from ITA No. 814/Chd/2023

JCIT(OSD)(TDS),CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD.,, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., बनाम 13Th Mile Stone, Tax (Osd) (Tds) Circle Aaykar Bhawan, Sector 2 Liberty Puram, G.T. Road, Panchkula Kutail, Karnal Tan No: Rtkl00664G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

condoned the delay and permitted the Ld. DR to argue the appeal on merits. 6. Accordingly, the Ld. departmental representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source in respect of incentive paid to various dealers as incentives. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee during