SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

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

block period that was assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes the intention

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)

disallowed and charged to tax and the assessee was given an opportunity to explain as to why the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022 by the AO for the A.Y. 2017-18 may not be cancelled and the AO may not be directed to make a fresh assessment. 5. In response to the show

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

Disallowance of 80IC on subsidy claimed in ITR.\nIssue 18 : Jewellery found at House no 2273, Sector 21C, Chandigarh & Locker no\n64, Bank of India, Sector 35, Chandigarh during the search.\n\n\n21\nIssue 19: Approval u/s 153D.\n4. Since common and identical issues are involved in most of the\ncaptioned appeals, hence we deem it appropriate to adjudicate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

disallowance made by the A.O. Coming to the identity of the parties we find that all the parties are registered with sales tax department and have charged VAT in each of the bills. All these parties have bank accounts and payments were made through account payee cheques. Evidence of material having been received by the assessee, has been filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections\nare dismissed

disallowing expenses on\npurchases on ground that an information was received from sales tax department\nthat assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries on account of bogus\npurchases, since Assessing Officer had not disputed corresponding sales\ntransactions, purchases also could not be bogus and, thus, impugned addition made\non account of bogus purchases to be deleted\n(vii) Also

ACIT, CIRCLE, PANCHKULA vs. SHRI SURINDER GARG, PANCHKULA

Bench: Us:

disallowance. 15. The issue before us is, whether in case of assessments framed under section 153A of the Act, addition could be made in the absence of any incriminating material in those years where no assessment proceedings were pending and assessment had been made u/s I43(l)/143(3) of the Act 16. We are in complete agreement with

M/S PAGRO FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

disallowing the depreciation on subsidised assets as hereunder: Rs. 2.50 Crores @ 15% = Rs. 37,50,000/- Rs. 35 Lakhs @ 15% = Rs. 5,25,000/- The Ld. CIT(A) too has upheld the above view of AO by having held in the impugned order “ The view taken by the Assessing Officer is upheld for the reasons recorded in the assessment order

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

disallowed the balance salary, it is apparent that there has been contradictory stand of different Assessing Officers. Similarly, the other family members under question are engaged in the different roles and responsibilities as assigned to them. AO has failed to bring on record that appellant society has violated the guidelines of the CBSE. During survey proceedings one of the Coordinators