BANGA HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANDI vs. ITO, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in passing the order without appreciating the facts, documentary evidences produced

SH. ABHISHEK BANSAL,BARNALA vs. PR. CIT, PATIALA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Bansal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner बनाम Prop. M/S Lifeline Multi Income Tax, Specialilty Hospitality, 25 Acre Patiala Extn., Near Fountain Chowk, Barnala, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acgpb5740E अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 5. The appeal has been filed on the following grounds: - 1. That the Ld. PCIT, Patiala has erred in issuing notice u/s 263 and, thereby, holding that the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer 131-Chd-2023 – Shri Abhishek Bansal, Barnala

RUPINDER KAUR,KHAMANO, FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SIRHIND

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed\n"आर

69A and 6 section 115BBE\nare not at all applicable as all the cash deposits\nare duly explainable and out of legitimate and\ngenuine sources of the assessee.\n7. That the appellant craves leave to add OR\namend the grounds of appeal before the appeal\nis finally heard and disposed off.\n3. At the outset, it has been pointed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

section 69A of the Act in respect of cash deposited during the demonetization period which is represented by sales is required. In view of the facts quoted above, the addition made of Rs.6,89,67,208/- u/s 69A of the Act is hereby deleted and accordingly ground 3 is allowed. 14. We have considered the arguments

SARU ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATIALA vs. ACIT/DCIT, CEN. CIR., PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of undertaking civil projects for Military engineering services under the name and style of M/s Saru Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and works as a MES contractor. A survey operation under section 133A was conducted

CHUHAR SINGH,CHUHAR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to the above condition

Bench: Cit(A). 3. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Providing Any Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard As No Notice Was Received On Email-Id Provided In Form 35 The Appeal Form Before Cita. 4. That Learned Cit(A)(Nfac) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Additions Of Rs. 2,43,60,035/- U/S 69A On Account Of Unaccounted Cash Credit.

section 69A and added to the income of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), as recorded in the impugned order , observed that there was a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal and that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation

RAJ KUMAR,MANALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KULLU

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

Bench: Us In Terms Of Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056199571(1) Dt. 18/09/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. Factual Matrix 2. The Ld. Ao Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/144/2019-20/1022831422(1) Dt. 21/12/2019 Has Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 35,38,840/- Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The Aforesaid Assessment Order Dt. 2112/2019 Had Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who By “Impugned Order” Has Dismissed The Same Exparte. 4. The Assessee Being Aggrieved By The “Impugned Order” Has Preferred Present Second Appeal Before Us & In Form No. 36 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax, 1961. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) further gravely erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,38,540/- by invoking provisions of Section 44AD and supply a rate of 8 per cent on total receipt of Rs. 67,31,750/-. Record of Hearing 5. The physical hearing before us took place

HEMANT BEHL,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), However The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On Account Of Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case. Against The Said Order Of The Ld Cit(A), The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

Section 69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of delay in filing of the appeal without considering the merits of the case. Against the said order of the ld CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks

HARJINDER SINGH, PATIALA,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD, SUNAM, PUNJAB

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of ninety-seven days is condoned. 12.1 On the merits of the appeal, we note that the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 was completed ex parte and the appellate order under section 250 has also been passed ex parte within a narrow window. The assessee disputes the validity of the service at every stage and seeks

KAILASH TYAGI,YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 698/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kailash Tyagi, Ito, बनाम #524, Gobind Puri, Ward 2, Near Santhosh Hospital, Yamunanagar Vs. Yamunanagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Adupt9570D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 69A for Rs. 2220000/- is illegal beyond facts and uncalled for. 4. That on facts and in law the amount deposited for Rs. 2220000/- in Joint Bank account is of her husband and out of agriculture Income earned by Late Husband Kailash Tyagi. 5. That no tax is payable on Interest Income from Central Cooperative Bank since the share

SH. RAJ KUMAR,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD -3, YAMUNA NAGAR

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

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

section 69A of the Act. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is delay in filing the present appeal by 329 days as pointed out by the Registry. In this regard, the assessee moved an application for seeking condonation

MANMOHAN SINGH & SONS,LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost as directed above

delay of seven days in both the appeals is hereby condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and the matters were heard together, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. We shall now take up the appeal

MANMOHAN SINGH & SONS,LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A),, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to payment of cost as directed above

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

delay of seven days in both the appeals is hereby condoned, and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and the matters were heard together, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 4. We shall now take up the appeal

THE ALEWA PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,ALEWA, JIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JIND

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

condonation for delay in filing of appeal. 2 6. That the appellant prays that the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) NFAC as well as Ld. AO by making an addition of Rs. 10,04,47,625/- to the returned income may kindly be annulled and returned income at Rs. Nil may be accepted. Further

SH. AMARJIT SINGH VPO AMARGARH, MALERKOTLA, SANGRUR,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

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

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 824/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Amarjit Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Central Circle 2, Vpo Amargarh, Ludhiana Malerkotla, Sangrur "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aywps7463E अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the appeal on meris. 5. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the Counsel of the Assessee are as under:- The assessee is an individual assessee. The business of trading of gold and work of goldsmith under the name and style of M/s Mani Jewellers, the above said business carried

SAUGAAT,AMBALA CANTT vs. ITO, WARD 4, AMBALA CANTT. (ASSESSMENT UNIT), AMBALA CANTT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the same pertain to Sh. Hemant Batra proprietor of M/s Saugaat and not to the appellant firm. 6 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant partnership firm was dissolved and during the year