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)

b) There was complete amalgamation of the Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. made through Calcutta High Court and the AO has not uttered a single word on this issue. c) The shares of Access Global Limited were allotted to the assessee as per the Calcutta High Court orders. The shares were received by the assessee in Demat Account. This fact

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)

b) There was complete amalgamation of the Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. made through Calcutta High Court and the AO has not uttered a single word on this issue. c) The shares of Access Global Limited were allotted to the assessee as per the Calcutta High Court orders. The shares were received by the assessee in Demat Account. This fact

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)

b) There was complete amalgamation of the Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. made through Calcutta High Court and the AO has not uttered a single word on this issue. c) The shares of Access Global Limited were allotted to the assessee as per the Calcutta High Court orders. The shares were received by the assessee in Demat Account. This fact

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)

b) There was complete amalgamation of the Maple Goods Pvt. Ltd. made through Calcutta High Court and the AO has not uttered a single word on this issue. c) The shares of Access Global Limited were allotted to the assessee as per the Calcutta High Court orders. The shares were received by the assessee in Demat Account. This fact

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B) to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not fulfilled and, therefore, Assessing officer has rightly imposed / levied penalty. That as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it was not necessary for the Assessing officer to add or to disallow something to attract the penalty provisions. Further, as per the Explanation

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

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

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

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal rate as per section 164(2) of the Act. 5.17 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that the issue of cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act shall be dealt upon by the CIT(E) only

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal rate as per section 164(2) of the Act. 5.17 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that the issue of cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act shall be dealt upon by the CIT(E) only

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

disallowed and added to income and the total income so calculated is taxed at maximum marginal rate as per section 164(2) of the Act. 5.17 As regards to the submissions of the assessee that the issue of cancellation of registration under section 12AA of the Act shall be dealt upon by the CIT(E) only