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

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

ACIT-CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

undisclosed income before filing of the return of income. iv. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assesse has complied with the conditions as prescribed in clause (iii) of section 271 AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was against the decision

ACIT,CC-1, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD., KHARAR

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

undisclosed income before filing of the return of income. iv. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assesse has complied with the conditions as prescribed in clause (iii) of section 271 AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was against the decision

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LTD.,KHARAR vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

undisclosed income before filing of the return of income. iv. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assesse has complied with the conditions as prescribed in clause (iii) of section 271 AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was against the decision

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

undisclosed income in the bank account declaring the same as their income of the assessment year under consideration in the return of income and paying taxes @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act, act of the assessee was taken as contributory factor in failure of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Hence, to curb this practice, the government substituted sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

undisclosed income in the bank account declaring the same as their income of the assessment year under consideration in the return of income and paying taxes @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act, act of the assessee was taken as contributory factor in failure of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Hence, to curb this practice, the government substituted sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

undisclosed income in the bank account declaring the same as their income of the assessment year under consideration in the return of income and paying taxes @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act, act of the assessee was taken as contributory factor in failure of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Hence, to curb this practice, the government substituted sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

undisclosed income in the bank account declaring the same as their income of the assessment year under consideration in the return of income and paying taxes @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act, act of the assessee was taken as contributory factor in failure of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Hence, to curb this practice, the government substituted sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

undisclosed income in the bank account declaring the same as their income of the assessment year under consideration in the return of income and paying taxes @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act, act of the assessee was taken as contributory factor in failure of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Hence, to curb this practice, the government substituted sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

undisclosed income in the bank account declaring the same as their income of the assessment year under consideration in the return of income and paying taxes @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act, act of the assessee was taken as contributory factor in failure of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Hence, to curb this practice, the government substituted sub section

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

undisclosed income in the bank account declaring the same as their income of the assessment year under consideration in the return of income and paying taxes @ 30% as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act, act of the assessee was taken as contributory factor in failure of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. Hence, to curb this practice, the government substituted sub section

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 7. Both the appellants have raised an additional ground of appeal vide which, it has been pleaded that original assessment order passed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act was required to be approved by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D. This approval

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. PARTAP INDUSTRIES LIMITED, RAJPURA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Court is required to examine as to whether any substantial question of law would arise for consideration we are of the view that the appeal should not be thrown out on technical ground. That apart we find that Tribunal had referred to a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Philips

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

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 9. The facts on all vital points are common in all the three years, rather, order of ld. CIT(A) is verbatim same except variation in the dates and quantum of the additions. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we are taking up facts from ITA No. 814/Chd/2023

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

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