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

1 to 3 and allowing the\nappeal of the assessee as per Ground of Appeal No. 4.\n39.\nThe Next Ground of appeal relates to addition on account of\npurchases made from the Neelkanth Steel & Allied Industries to the tune\nof Rs.1,92,51,910/-. For that, we have gone through the arguments of\nboth the sides and find that

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

1 to 3 and allowing the\nappeal of the assessee as per Ground of Appeal No. 4.\n39.\nThe Next Ground of appeal relates to addition on account of\npurchases made from the Neelkanth Steel & Allied Industries to the tune\nof Rs.1,92,51,910/-. For that, we have gone through the arguments of\nboth the sides and find that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case, the difference between the total

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case, the difference between the total

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case, the difference between the total

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case, the difference between the total

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case, the difference between the total

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case, the difference between the total

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

148 of the Act, had deposited due taxes and the resultant addition after assessment does not create any liability to pay any further tax, there will be no tax sought to be evaded. 19. Now coming to the relevant clause (c) to Explanation 4, which is residuary clause which speaks that in any other case, the difference between the total

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)

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 by 05 days for which Revenue has filed a condonation of delay application. 3. Delay

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

1)(c) of the Act, dated 21-03-05 & 28-11-08 respectively and relate to the same assessment year (in short referred to as A.Y) i.e 1995-96. 2. Initially both the appeals had been dismissed by the ITAT on limitation grounds, not condoning the delay in filing of the same, vide their order dated

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

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3.\nIt has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

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

condonation of delay.\n3. It has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

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

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

delayed filing of the appeal, the same is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case was originally completed under section 144 r.w.s 147 at an assessed income of Rs. 47,00,000/- on account of unexplained money. Thereafter, the assessee carried the matter

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

condonation of delay.\n3.\nIt has been submitted before us that in the Cross Objections, assessee\nhas raised a jurisdictional issue on the ground that no Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued to conduct the search upon the premises of the\nassessee. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Warrant of\nAuthorization was issued in the name

SH. SARANJIT SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First

SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 381 & 382/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Shamsher Singh, Vs. The Acit बनाम Central Circle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Singh Chandigarh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahjps3586P अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 383 & 384/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Vs. The Acit Saranjit Singh, बनाम Centralcircle-2, 11-A, Gen Chanda Chandigarh Singh Colony, Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amwps9575J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeals on merits. Since the facts and issue involved in the captioned appeals are 4. identical and are relating to same search action, therefore, these captioned appeals were heard together and are disposed of with this 381-382 & 383-384-Chd-2022 Shamsher Singh & Saranjit Singh, Patiala 3 common order. First