M/S ASHA TECHNOLOGIES,KALA AMB vs. ITO, SIRMOUR

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as aforesaid in respect of impugned orders dt

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

133(6)/ 131 of the IT Act to substantiate the findings. In the reported case the assessee is manufacturing Telephone Cable Jointing Kits and not Telecom Parts used for installation of mobile towers. The word telephone has got specific meaning thereby referring to telephone set or its parts whereas word Telecom has wider connotation. On the other hand assessee firm

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing out of vehicle of the company. The copy of account of hire charges, which had been furnished before both the taxing authorities, stands filed before us also. It formed part of the books of account

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing out of vehicle of the company. The copy of account of hire charges, which had been furnished before both the taxing authorities, stands filed before us also. It formed part of the books of account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

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

133(6) and receiving clarification from the Executive Engineer, IPH, on perusal of which the Assessing Officer found that the contract was on Built Operate Transfer (BOT) basis and not in the nature of works contract and that the project was on turnkey basis in which the assessee was involved in operation and management also. The AO in that case

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 15.03.2021 for furnish the relevant documents/information on or before 18.03.2021, but no information/documents was filed by the assessee in response to abovementioned letters. 5. Findings of the AO: Since the genuineness of the excess claim amounting to Rs.10,91,16,920/- for deduction u/s 80IC

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender / creditor for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 79,50,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. 16.14 Moreover, if only the assessee was not able

ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) / AO before confirming

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. Neither enquiry was made by CIT(A) / AO before confirming

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

133(6) or 131 of the Act for further investigation. However, it is noteworthy that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) extended any such notice to the lender for additional inquiries. Instead, an addition of Rs. 4,50,000/- was made based on the directive of a third party. 22.3 The documents are submitted by the company in paperbook

M/S PUNJAB TISSUE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-2(3), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal, With The Permission Of The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That The Ao Taking Note

section 250(6) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 10270/16-17 dated 15.11.2019 is contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh gravelly erred in upholding the action of the ld. Assessing Officer who had made

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

section 54 since the assessee did not attend and comply with the show case notice issued by the AO on 26/12 for 28/12. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessing officer was incorrect and unjustified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption of long term capital gain without providing

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) of the Act, the BIS submitted its reply vide dated ITA 602 to 605/CHD/2019 A.Y.2011-12 to 2014-15 14 31.12.2014 from where it is found that assessee firm Unit-ll has been mentioned to be in use (sharing of facilities) of the machinery of Unit-I since 08.03.2010 to 06.06.2011 and even more the test equipments of already

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) of the Act, the BIS submitted its reply vide dated ITA 602 to 605/CHD/2019 A.Y.2011-12 to 2014-15 14 31.12.2014 from where it is found that assessee firm Unit-ll has been mentioned to be in use (sharing of facilities) of the machinery of Unit-I since 08.03.2010 to 06.06.2011 and even more the test equipments of already

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) of the Act, the BIS submitted its reply vide dated ITA 602 to 605/CHD/2019 A.Y.2011-12 to 2014-15 14 31.12.2014 from where it is found that assessee firm Unit-ll has been mentioned to be in use (sharing of facilities) of the machinery of Unit-I since 08.03.2010 to 06.06.2011 and even more the test equipments of already

M/S SHRI RAM CYLINDERS (UNIT II),CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

133(6) of the Act, the BIS submitted its reply vide dated ITA 602 to 605/CHD/2019 A.Y.2011-12 to 2014-15 14 31.12.2014 from where it is found that assessee firm Unit-ll has been mentioned to be in use (sharing of facilities) of the machinery of Unit-I since 08.03.2010 to 06.06.2011 and even more the test equipments of already

M/S NECTAR LIFESCIENCE LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

133(6) was issued to Indian Energy Exchange, which is the largest exchange to trade power to ascertain average price of power traded at that exchange. In response to this the IEX has submitted day to day average rate is Rs.3.499 per unit. It can be seen that average rate of power traded at IEX during

S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

133 to 138. The relevant reasons recorded were referred by ld. counsel and the same are being reproduced as under: Reasons recorded for initiating proceedings ids 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Reasons recorded in the case of Ms. S P Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. A.Y 2012-13 in respect of initiation of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147/148

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133(6) of the Act and the sundry debtors and creditors were asked to provide confirmed copies of account of the assessee from their books of account and the resultant situation of these notices has been summarized in the order of assessment as under: Sr. Status No. of cases ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

133(6) of the Act and the sundry debtors and creditors were asked to provide confirmed copies of account of the assessee from their books of account and the resultant situation of these notices has been summarized in the order of assessment as under: Sr. Status No. of cases ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal