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)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

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)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

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)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

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)

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being

SHRI ABHISHEK SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 321 & 322/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 Shri Abhishek Soin, The Dcit, C/O Sigma Cartons Pvt. Ltd., Vs Central Circle-Ii, Unit-Ii, Industrial Area-C, Ludhiana. Sua Road, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Anbps9446A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR 215(St)]; iv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)]; v) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)] 7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being

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)

153A(1)(b) ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 56 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, which were duly explained by the assessee as supporting the stand taken by the assessee on the amount of Rs.3 lacs, have nowhere been rebutted by the taxing

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)

153A(1)(b) ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 56 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Smt. Kiran Singla, for assessment year 2014-15, which were duly explained by the assessee as supporting the stand taken by the assessee on the amount of Rs.3 lacs, have nowhere been rebutted by the taxing

DCIT, C-1(1) , CHANDIGARH vs. M/S FIDELITY INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the foreign travel expenses which clearly form part of the operating expenses and the cost base and on which the assessee has reported the revenues after considering the mark up of 16.60%. Such an action on part of the AO is clearly in breach of letter and spirit of the APA which has been entered into by CBDT

SMT. RITU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

1 SOT 914 (Asr.)] [Appeal\ndismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and SLP dismissed by SC in 268 ITR\n215(St)];\niv) Assam Tea Co. v. ITO [(2005) 92ITD 85 (Asr.) (SB)];\nv) Jhantala Investments Limited v ACIT [(2000) 73 ITD 123 (Mum.)]\n7. Further in this case assessment was made under section 153A, being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. MS SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATOTRIES AND EDUCATION LTD., , CHANDIGARH

153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pursuant to the search action\ncarried out under Section 132 of the Act in Scott Edil Group of cases\non 15.11.2017. Since the facts involved in all these captioned appeals\nare identical and there are common issues, hence the same were heard\ntogether and the same

PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, CC-I, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

Bench: Final Hearing.

disallowed Rs. 63,778/- deduction under Chapter VI-A due to the absence of supporting documentary evidence, adding it back to the taxable income. Regarding the land sale, the AO rejected the exemption claim, noting that the land was classified as "Phahar" (non-cultivable) in the registration deed, with no proof of agricultural activity or income provided. After allowing

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pursuant to the search action\ncarried out under Section 132 of the Act in Scott Edil Group of cases\non 15.11.2017. Since the facts involved in all these captioned appeals\nare identical and there are common issues, hence the same were heard\ntogether and the same

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)

disallowed the total expenses claimed by assessee on account of these bogus Sub Contractor firms at Rs.36,10,58,438/-. Accordingly, assessee's income was assessed. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A), assessee raised the issue of re-opening vide Ground No. 2 and 3 as under : “2. That the assessment order dated 17.12.2019 passed

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

153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pursuant to the search action\ncarried out under Section 132 of the Act in Scott Edil Group of cases\non 15.11.2017. Since the facts involved in all these captioned appeals\nare identical and there are common issues, hence the same were heard\ntogether and the same

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pursuant to the search action\ncarried out under Section 132 of the Act in Scott Edil Group of cases\non 15.11.2017. Since the facts involved in all these captioned appeals\nare identical and there are common issues, hence the same were heard\ntogether and the same

ACIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD., GURGAON

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1355/Chandi/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1997-98) Dcit-1(1)(1) M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd. R.N.579A, 5Th Floor (Legal Successor Of M/S Glaxosmithkline बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan Consumer Healthcare Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai – 400020 Unilever House, B.D. Swant Marg, Chakala Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaach-1004-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohit Jain (Advocate) & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) A/W Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 1997-98 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh Dated 02-08-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act On 31-03-2017. The Revenue Has Filed Revised Form No.36 On 10-09-2024 Which Is On Record. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

disallowances made in the regular assessment. The order passed on 31-03-2017 was not an order of regular assessment as envisaged u/s 234D. Accordingly, the interest as charged by Ld. AO was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. The short issue that falls for our consideration is to adjudicate