HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n6.\nAppeal of the Assessee

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

condonation of delay.\n\n5.\nSince the issue involved in all the appeals are identical,\n(except in ITA No. 673/Chd/2021 for AY 2015-16) wherein, the\norder had been passed u/s 263 of the I.T. Act by CIT Exemptions,\nChandigarh, therefore, these appeals were heard together and are\ndisposed off for the sake of brevity.\n\n6.\nAppeal

M/S GYMKHANA CLUB,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, W-3, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D.Jain, Vice Prersident & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 1305/Chd/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Gymkhana Club, Vs The Ito, Sector 6, Ward-3, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaag0115B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Mukhi, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2024 Physical Hearing आदेश/Order Per Vikram Singh Yadav,A.M.

delay is herby condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee club had declared ‘Nil’ income in its return of income claiming the whole of its receipts as exempt under the principle of mutuality. As per the return of income filed for the year under consideration

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)

condonation of delay. Appeal is therefore taken up for final hearing. Factual Matrix 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of commercial vehicles and is a public limited company. For the year under consideration which is A.Y. 2015-16 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015, the assessee company filed its return

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

210). It was contended that when the reference to DVO was invalid, the assessment order was time-barred as per the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Textiles (294 ITR 561). Similar was the view of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Chet Ram Ravi Kumar (ITA No.696 to 698/Chd/2013). 4.10 The assessee further

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

210). It was contended that when the reference to DVO was invalid, the assessment order was time-barred as per the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Textiles (294 ITR 561). Similar was the view of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Chet Ram Ravi Kumar (ITA No.696 to 698/Chd/2013). 4.10 The assessee further

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

210). It was contended that when the reference to DVO was invalid, the assessment order was time-barred as per the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Textiles (294 ITR 561). Similar was the view of Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Chet Ram Ravi Kumar (ITA No.696 to 698/Chd/2013). 4.10 The assessee further

KISHNA RAM,SIRMOUR HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NAHAN, NAHAN

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

delay is condoned, as sufficient cause has been shown, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. The assessee, Shri Kishan Ram, a resident individual, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021–22 electronically on 10.01.2022, declaring total income of Rs.4,42,210/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, under section

RAMAN PILLAI SIVASANKARA PILLAI,BALTANA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 770/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Raman Pillai Sivasankara Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Pillai, #1590, Saini Vihar, International Taxation, Phase 3, Baltana, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cjcpp4391J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20 .01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

condone the delay of 140 days. The ld. DR did not have any objection on this issue. 4. Grounds taken by the Assessee are as under:- 1. That the order under appeal is excessive, unjust, contrary to facts and is against law. 2. That the Learned Assessing Officer has wrongly passed the order under Section 144 of the Income

DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA vs. M/S GANESHAY OVERSEAS INDUSTRIES LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

delay of two days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned. 5. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 & 2, as available at page 4 of the impugned order, at the end of the year ., the assessee had total outstanding investments to the tune of Rs.67,50,42,000/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.2,55,05,020/- by applying

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

delay of two days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned. 5. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 & 2, as available at page 4 of the impugned order, at the end of the year ., the assessee had total outstanding investments to the tune of Rs.67,50,42,000/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.2,55,05,020/- by applying

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

210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX\nOFFICER

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

210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX\nOFFICER

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

210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX\nOFFICER

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

210 ITD 1 (Amritsar - Trib.) [18-\n10-2024]\nf)\nFloyd Filandro Linhares vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 166\ntaxmann.com 125 (Bombay)/[2025] 473 ITR 587 (Bombay) [07-08-2024]\ng)\nSBC Minerals (P.) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 167 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)[20-08-2024]\nh)\nCENTRAL INDIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX\nOFFICER