WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

natural justice by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording the Appellant any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law. That the order dated 10.05,2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law andfuels on thefile in as much

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

natural justice by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording the Appellant any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law. That the order dated 10.05,2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). Delhi is against law andfuels on thefile in as much

PLATINUM SALES,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(1), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1156/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Platinum Sales, The Ito, Scf-10, Sector 9-D, बनाम Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aanfp7207P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Phsyical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Ekakshra Mandhar, Advocate & Sh. Atul Mandhar, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi.

natural justice and has caused grave prejudice to the Assessee. 2. That the Lrd. CIT(A) has been unjustified in upholding addition of Rs.1,12,65,000/- on account of Disallowance

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice despite the fact that a specific ground was raised to this effect. 4. The ground nos. 1 & 5 are legal grounds vide which the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. in initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material was found during the course of search. These legal grounds were argued

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice despite the fact that a specific ground was raised to this effect. 4. The ground nos. 1 & 5 are legal grounds vide which the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. in initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material was found during the course of search. These legal grounds were argued

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice despite the fact that a specific ground was raised to this effect. 4. The ground nos. 1 & 5 are legal grounds vide which the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. in initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material was found during the course of search. These legal grounds were argued

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice despite the fact that a specific ground was raised to this effect. 4. The ground nos. 1 & 5 are legal grounds vide which the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. in initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material was found during the course of search. These legal grounds were argued

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice despite the fact that a specific ground was raised to this effect. 4. The ground nos. 1 & 5 are legal grounds vide which the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. in initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material was found during the course of search. These legal grounds were argued

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

natural justice despite the fact that a specific ground was raised to this effect. 4. The ground nos. 1 & 5 are legal grounds vide which the assessee had challenged the jurisdiction of the A.O. in initiating the proceedings under section 153A of the Act when no incriminating material was found during the course of search. These legal grounds were argued

SH. HARBANS LAL S/O SH. GANPAT RAM,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ITO, WARD, NABHA CAMP AT , MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhsh. Harbans Lal Vs. The Ito S/O Sh. Ganpat Ram, Ward Nabha Camp H.No. -254, Sector-4 At Mandi Gobindgarh Block D, Shastri Nagar, Mandi, Gobindgarh Pan No. Alzps3021K (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the same is confirmed. Thus, the additions of Rs. 8,02,394/- on trading account and Rs. 1 lakh on account of lack of evidence regarding the claim of deduction are sustained. It is ordered accordingly. (emphasis supplied) 3. On perusal of the above it is evident that the tax payer has not been able to advance his case

CT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,JALANDHAR vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

natural justice. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in disallowance

ITO, W-4(2), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SWARAN FASTNERS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Justice and additions based on this issue should be deleted and assessment should be quashed. 5.1 The aforesaid submission were forwarded to the A.O. by the Ld. CIT(A) for the remand report. In response the A.O. submitted as under: Kindly refer to reply filed by the counsel of the assessee dated 26.09.2017 addressed to you. 2. In this regard

THE KOTLA BHARI MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY LTD.,KHANNA vs. ITO, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of the deduction claimed from the gross total income u/s 80P for Rs. 8.19.137/- without providing any opportunity of hearing resulting in gross violation of the principle of natural justice

BANUR BROTHER ,PATIALA vs. ITO-WARD-1, AMBALA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

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

natural justice. It was further also contended that appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to participate and prosecute matter before first appellate authority, therefore impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) must be set aside. The Ld. AR on merits in respect of ground No. 2 & 3 has submitted as follows: 2.2.1 That the Appellant was a commission agent

M/S INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 6(1), MOHALI

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is

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

natural justice. 2. That, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits the grounds of appeal. On Merits 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the reassessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles are not absolute meaning thereby it depends upon the facts and circumstances whether to extend the opportunity to the assessee for the cross-examination. In a situation where the addition

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles are not absolute meaning thereby it depends upon the facts and circumstances whether to extend the opportunity to the assessee for the cross-examination. In a situation where the addition

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles are not absolute meaning thereby it depends upon the facts and circumstances whether to extend the opportunity to the assessee for the cross-examination. In a situation where the addition

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles are not absolute meaning thereby it depends upon the facts and circumstances whether to extend the opportunity to the assessee for the cross-examination. In a situation where the addition