GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

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

144B, copy whereof is on page 14 to 18 of Paper Book filed and this order is correct assessment order and not the assessment order impugned in ‘Impugned order under Section 263” of the Act. Therefore, impugned order should be set aside at naught, being non est. 15.1 It was further contended that a Show Cause Notice dated

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending,\nwherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on\n19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated 07.08.2025.\n1.4 The appellant, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare\nBoard, is a statutory body

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending,\nwherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on\n19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated 07.08.2025.\n1.4 The appellant, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare\nBoard, is a statutory body

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending,\nwherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on\n19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated 07.08.2025.\n\n1.4 The appellant, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare\nBoard, is a statutory

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

144B\ndated 23.03.2022, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CIT(A),\nNFAC on 22.04.2022. The first appeal proceedings are presently pending,\nwherein the appellant has already filed detailed written submissions on\n19.08.2025 in response to the notice under section 250 dated 07.08.2025.\n\n1.4 The appellant, Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare\nBoard, is a statutory

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

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

144B and made various additions including ₹3,60,17,756 on account of alleged bogus purchases, along with other disallowances. D. The assessee submitted that all purchases were genuine and supported by documentary evidence such as GST returns (GSTR-2A), purchase invoices, bank statements, supplier confirmations, and books of account. E. It was argued that GST registrations of suppliers were

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB 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)

144B of the Act dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(a) below section 263(1) of the Act. This is because the order has been passed without making proper and requisite inquiries or verifications which should have been made, thus making

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Act dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2(a) below section 263(1) of the Act. This is because the order has been passed without making proper and requisite inquiries or verifications which should have been made, thus making

SURESH KUMAR YOGINDER KUMAR, TIMBER MARKET 2692-1-2 ,AMBALA CANTT vs. NFAC DELHI JURISDITIONAL OFFICER ITO WARD 4 AMBALA, AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

disallowed. A draft assessment order\nwas sent on 15/4/2021 proposing the above addition and to file his reply latest by\n19/4/2021. But it is seen that the assessee has not filed any reply till the date of\nfinalization of the assessment order, hence, it is presumed that the assessee has nothing\nto say in the matter and has agreed

AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The Pcit, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8Th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase Viii, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadca0494Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

disallowances while completing the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 and 144B of the Act in its order

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)

144B. 3.1 The AO concluded that the assessee was existing for profit and functioning on commercial principles, leading to the denial of the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The original surplus of Rs. 8,35,76,594.11/- was consequently taxed as an Association of Persons (AOP). 3.2 The key findings and resulting financial actions

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowing the claim under Section 80P(2)(d).The assessee challenged the reopening as being without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 14. The assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter the present appeal is being filed before the Tribunal. 15. At the outset Ld. Counsel submitted that the notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2022 was issued manually

THE GAROH CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,DHARAMSHALA, KANGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHARAMSHALA, DHARAMSHALA

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowing the claim under Section 80P(2)(d).The assessee challenged the reopening as being without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 14. The assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter the present appeal is being filed before the Tribunal. 15. At the outset Ld. Counsel submitted that the notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2022 was issued manually

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

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

disallowances on the issues involved impliedly after due application of mind. Therefore, the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act do not, in our view, thwart the assessment process in the facts and the context of the case. Consequently, we find that the foundation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction is sorely missing in the present case. 10. Resultantly

DEEPAK KUMAR PROP. M/S URVI ENTERPRISES MANDIGOBINDGARH,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NFAC DELHI JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 MANDI GOBINDGARH, MANDI GOBINDGARH

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

144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,58,400/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the basis of risk parameters indicating high liabilities vis-à-vis low income and substantial purchases from suppliers who were

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the impugned order is sustained and appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

144B, assessing the total loss at Rs.20,23,45,760, after considering the loss determined in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act as the starting point of computation and making addition on account of alleged under-valuation of closing work-in- progress ('WIP'). It is the factual position that during the year under consideration closing stock

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. FRONTIER AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, CHANDIGARH

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard Or Is Disposed Off.

disallowed the disputed amounts, increased the income returned, and completed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B at a total

KASTURI LAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B has been passed on 21/03/2023 wherein the AO has held the sum of Rs.13,87,000/- being the amount of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee as unexplained money invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act. As per the AO, the assessee was running a petrol pump and from examination of its bank account