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

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. 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

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

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

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.

B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.11 & 12 /Chd/ 2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 बनाम Pawan Kumar Singla The DCIT L/H Late Brij Lal Singla Central Circle-1 House No. 105, Sector 8 Chandigarh Panchkula

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

KARNAIL SINGH,UK vs. JCIT (OSD) INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed

disallowance of deduction or the treatment of income leading to penalty is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. It is further seen that though the AO has not referred to Explanation 3 to sec.271(l)(c), the aforesaid explanation is clearly applicable to the appellant. The explanation lays out a deemed concealment for cases where returns have not been filed

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

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised\nis dismissed

B”,\nCHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE\nश्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री कृणवन्त सहाय, लेखा सदस्य\nBEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.11 & 12 /Chd/ 2018\nनिर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13\nPawan Kumar Singla\nL/H Late Brij Lal Singla\nHouse No. 105, Sector 8\nPanchkula\nबनाम\nThe DCIT\nCentral Circle