ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A(9) of the IT. Act are being proposed to be initiated separately. 32.5 After discussion, the income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Total income Rs. 153,65,65,490/- Addition as discussed in para-7 above Rs. 12,07,04,500/- Total assessed income Rs.165,72,69,990/- 32.6 The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7.\nFeeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

SH. AJIT SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANCHKULA

270A for\nunder-reporting of income.\n7.\nFeeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)\nconsidered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and\nthe material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that\nthe Assessing

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order, the written submissions of the assessee, and the material available on record. At the outset, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing